It's the culture man.

Fire of Liberty
James P. Pinkerton, columnist and commentator on "FOX News Watch," has an excellent piece in New York's Newsday on how the Democratic party is continuing to alienate a considerable amount of American society when it comes to the issue of religion. Now a lot of people will say that Pinkerton's observation is just another right-wing/Republican argument used to demean or castigate the Democratic party but a considerable amount of people will be shocked to know that this observation was pointed out by two veterans of the Clinton administration. According to Pinkerton, William Galston and Elaine Kamark have produced a paper titled "The Politics of Polarization" that noted during the past thirty years people have slowly cleaved themselves in two columns with the conservatives and religious believers drifting towards the GOP while the liberals and their secular brethren drifting towards the DNC. Even more, they observed that moderates also tend to find comfort in the conservative ideas on social issues like abortion, gay marriage and the public display of religion. All of these factors combined show that as long as the leadership of the DNC (Not the religious loving Democrats who vote Democrats, most of which have left Dean and his gang long ago.) continues to snub the American public by coming out on the behalf of various interest groups that fight tooth and nail against policies that a large segment of the population approve off, they will continue to be perceived as the party that the religious need not apply. I think Pinkerton summed up the DNC's dilemma pretty well in the following paragraphs:

The 18th-century Scottish politician Alexander Fletcher once declared, let me write a nation's songs, and I care not for its laws. By that he meant that culture precedes politics; it's a person's culture, including religion, that shapes his or her attitudes toward government.

So the recent visit of Joel Osteen, pastor of a Houston megachurch - he filled most of the Nassau Coliseum and Madison Square Garden - is a revealing indicator of the future cultural and political direction of the country. In the past six years, the boyish Osteen has emerged as perhaps the hottest of the Christian televangelists.

Yet unlike, say, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, Osteen is entirely apolitical. Even his Southern fundamentalism is expressed in user-friendly pastels; he is half biblical and half motivational. The reward for his soft-edged approach is clear: The red-state preacher was warmly received in blue-state New York, by an audience that was probably two-thirds black and Hispanic.

But make no mistake: Osteen is a Christian proselytizer. He held his Bible over his head and urged his audience to do the same, as they all chanted, "This is my Bible. I am what it says I am, I have what it says I have, I can do what it says I can do."

So while Osteen did not seek to challenge the politics of his New York fans, it's clear his ministry helps to foster a "faith-based" view of the world - that's his point. And as Galston and Kamarck argue, in the current politico-religious climate that's bad news for Democrats.

I think that instead of the DNC and their friends salivating over garnering seats in Congress and the Senate in 2006 during a period in which it looks like there's a conservative "crack-up" over Miers and other issues, possible indictments of Rove or Libby, Delay's trouble or even the President's low poll numbers, maybe they should find a way to stop alienating the American public on social issues. Until then, I don't expect the Democrats to have many happy moments come 06 and 08. Now I could be wrong on everything but I'll take my chances in this roll of the dice.