Politics

Party beyond parody: pro-abortion Democrat convention boos God

It’s the sort of thing you expect only in hyper-partisan diatribes, Onion articles, or Saturday Night Live skits, a political blunder so epically, gratuitously embarrassing that its happening to a major political party in real life is inconceivable.

But it happened this week: the Democrats snubbed God. First came this change to the 2012 platform:

This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:

“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

There remains a passage endorsing the charitable work of faith-based organizations, but that hardly mitigates the shock of somebody feeling the need to remove mention of Americans’ “God-given potential.” To all but the most hardened secularists, the line didn’t need changing – it was completely benign, implied no religious burden, denigrated no religion, and bound the Democrats to no particular policy. The only reason for removing it is that those who did so were simply so radical they didn’t want God getting any credit.

So far, the Democrats have yet to offer a better explanation – Sen. Dick Durbin deflected questions with indignation, and party chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz denied that there was anything to see behind the curtain.

Recognizing that pointlessly offending 89% of the population might be a PR problem, yesterday Democrat leaders moved to restore the 2008 language (as well as language recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital)…

…and somehow made the situation worse.

Convention chair Antonio Villaraigosa held a voice vote on the resolution. And a second one. And a third. Each time got plenty of “no” votes, and from the video, it’s not at all clear that the “yea” voices outnumbered them. On the third try, a visibly uncomfortable Villaraigosa declared the restored language approved…causing the hall to erupt into a hail of boos.

Even allowing that the original omission might have been an unintentional error, there’s no denying that a significant percentage of Democrat convention-goers – possibly a majority – wanted to keep the language out, and angrily voiced their disapproval when party leadership overruled them.

Booing God. On camera. At the president of the United States’ nominating convention. That’s a milestone nobody’s gonna pass in a while.

It’s no coincidence that a party growing increasingly hostile to God is also becoming increasingly absolutist on abortion. Both trends are rooted in a hubris that puts human desire at the center of moral and political theory and denies there are higher principles binding human behavior and limiting the burdens we can impose on our neighbors in the pursuit of our goals.

   
Live Action on Facebook
  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    You’re a writer. You, more than anyone, should know that you have many words at your disposal and that some may be useful in one draft, others might be useful in another.

    To imply that this re-write reveals anything about the party’s position on religiosity is the real parody and I think you know it. You’re gaming the same kind of feigned indignation that leads to worrying about who’s wearing a flag pin or whether strapping an Irish Setter to the roof of your station wagon says something deep about your policy positions.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Still struggling to make that connection between asserting something and backing it up, I see. Asserting I’m wrong or insincere (pot meet kettle, btw) without trying to present a good reason for why that would be the case simply won’t cut it.

      What reason would there be for changing it? Why haven’t the Democrats gotten their story straight yet about the change? And again, even if this was somehow an honest oversight, we still have thousands of Democrats on video actively resisting the language – so many, in fact, that Villaraigosa couldn’t claim the ayes had a majority the first two times, and probably didn’t have a majority the third.

      And I’m not saying the initial omission, in isolation, would say anything about their religiosity. (It would still, however, be an astonishingly incompetent PR move that should call their fitness for any elected office into question.) But it absolutely reflects the modern Democrat Party’s disregard for religion. You can’t truly respect God and support the legal right to murder His children. Nor can you claim the mantle of faith while trampling religious liberty.

      Lastly, I can’t help but chuckle that you’re complaining about non-issues “saying something deep about your policy positions” after you tried to name a plank in the GOP platform after one Congressman nobody had ever heard of a month ago, who wasn’t the choice of a majority of his state’s primary voters, and who said something his own party immediately denounced. No time for consistency when there’s an agenda to push, eh?

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        You’re right, I can’t prove your intentions any more than you can prove the people on the floor in Charlotte are godless heathens.

        But reasonable people should be able to sift through the language changes and realize they say the same thing: people should have a “chance to make the most of their God-given potential” versus “hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.” God hasn’t been removed. An adjective has.

        Your last point, I think, points to the real rhetorical game at play. Romney’s campaign has proven to have a predilection for I’m-Rubber-You’re-Glue tactics. Romney outsourced jobs at Bain? So? So did Obama as President. Romney’s an out-of-touch rich guy? No, it’s Obama who’s an out-of-touch effete. Romney wants to gut Medicare? No, it’s the other way around. Mitt put his dog on the roof of his car? So!? Obama ate dog!

        And now the tit-for-tat is the platform planks. The only difference is that one (rape victims must carry their rapists’ babies) is a real policy position. And the other is just an adjective.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          When the argument’s not going your way, ignore the facts that are inconvenient and start the off-topic rambling about your other partisan hang-ups. Interesting tactic.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Don’t get mad at me if you can’t grasp the political tactics at hand here. This is pure, Twitter-era nonsense and I’m frankly surprised you’re trafficking in it.

            The only fact I ignored (ie: ceded) is that it’s bad PR. But I’ll take the triumphs of Mrs. Obama’s and Mr. Clinton’s nights (that people actually watched) over the quisquilia of platform votes that could only get a rise out of policy nerds like you and me who have already made up their minds.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            It’s cute how you think repeating some talking points constitutes “grasping political tactics.”

            “The only fact I ignored (ie: ceded) is that it’s bad PR.”

            And the lack of a good reason for a change. And the delegates’ opinion on whether the language should go back in. And how the spectacle coincides with the party increasingly adopting aforementioned policy positions that are incompatible with genuine respect for faith.

            But other than that, you’re tackling this head-on. Right.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Why change? Why not? Platforms get re-written every 4 years.

            I should also note you’re also deliberately leaving out an important aspect of this story, which may have lead to some of the contentiousness on the floor. One of the re-writes edited out explicit advocacy for Jerusulem as Israel’s capital city. Muslim Democrats, angry about this sop to the Jewish hard-line, made some of the ruckus yesterday you’re taking glee in.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Nope, I mentioned the Jerusalem issue right in the post. So just like the irresponsible, incompetent way they handle major legislation, Democrats got burned for doing multiple things at once, without giving either subject the focus or care it was due. It’s kind of poetic, really.

            Surely that was some of the opposition, but “Dems are radical on Israel, too!” isn’t exactly the best defense. And it defies credibility to suggest anti-faith animus wasn’t a big part of it, considering the party is growing increasingly dismissive of human life’s value and increasingly contemptuous of religious liberty.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            Yeah. I’ll maintain that as a writer you should recognize that language is malleable. You’re being transparently opportunistic about what you’ve already recognized as a PR problem. Do you want me to transcribe the PR problems the RNC had with Ron Paul delegates?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Sticking to the “just bad PR” spin, eh? It must simplify things to just go through life ignoring the scandals you don’t wan to deal with. Unfortunately, a responsible approach to political involvement demands more.

    • Mitch Behna

      And you’re a reader, so you should know by now what the Constitution says

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        Your comments are worse than your columns, which is quite a feat.

  • http://www.facebook.com/plink1 Patrick Link

    Don’t forget to add people who may have been booing because of the Jerusalem as capitol of Israel or who may have been booing over the improper procedural way it was inserted. If I would have been there, I would have booed for all three reasons.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      “If I would have been there, I would have booed for all three reasons.”

      I rest my case.

    • LoveTheLeast8

      Confirmed then. Democrats disapprove of God and Israel.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000310776285 Jonathan Cuellar

    There is no God in U.S. government. Even the founding fathers being the men of faith that they were had the wherewithal to leave god out of government. We are not a theocracy. Religion and faith have no place in governance here in the USA.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      The Founders didn’t want churches to control government or people, or for people to be bound by any particular faith, but that’s very different from saying they wanted to “leave god out of government,” which simply isn’t true. The US is founded on the premise that government’s legitimate core purpose is protecting rights that people have been granted by God, and the Founders overwhelmingly believed a self-governing society couldn’t endure without sufficient regard for religious values. For more, see here: http://liveactionnews.org/opinion/rethinking-intersection-of-church-state-right-to-life/

    • LoveTheLeast8

      The Democratic vote wasn’t over putting God into government or creating a theocracy. It was over a recognition of God as part of our history as a country/people. Recognizing that isn’t putting a religion in charge. That is just stupid.

    • Mitch Behna

      uh yea actually there is. And actually we wouldn’t exist and have a government without God, not the other way around.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000310776285 Jonathan Cuellar

        ??? WHAT?

  • Mitch Behna

    I cracked up when the chair had to revote twice and was at a lost of words. the more gaffes at the convention, the better for us. And so much for the 2/3 majority vote to put it back in. My gosh, I think there were more ‘no’ votes then ‘yes’ votes to put God and Jerusalem back in the platform.

    • Richard

      It was a cringe-worthy moment. The boos weren’t for God, obviously, as one has to believe in such a thing to actually boo it. The boos were for the trampling of the rules requiring a 2/3 majority when there clearly wasn’t one.

  • Gordon Duffy

    They should have booed. There is no way 2/3rd of them voted for religious pandering and no way that “god” should have been wedged into the platform. I was so proud of them for leaving their god out.

    • Richard

      God is an imaginary friend for adults.

  • Pingback: Democrat Activists Online Attack Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction Prayer