Why didn't she do more outreach to this guy?

An idiot had an interview, and a fellow idiot at The Atlantic typed it up. The topic of this interview was "how are you, guy whose actual job was 'do religious outreach for the Obama administration,' going to accuse the Democrats and Barack Obama of refusing to do outreach to religious people, and are all of the reasons going to be stupid and enraging (stupraging) and are you going to complain that Democrats won't 'admit' we're a Christian nation at least once, and are you also going to complain about how Democrats just won't stop insisting that women have the right to birth control pills and gay people have the right to get married, even though you really want the Democrats to just agree with you and it is so unfair that they won't, oh you are going to whine and complain about all of those things, that's good, we were worried you were going to be unreasonable somehow."

So that was the topic of the interview. Shall we dive in?

During his time working for Obama, [Michael] Wear was often alone in many of his views, he writes in his new book, Reclaiming Hope. He helped with faith-outreach strategies for Obama’s 2008 campaign, but was surprised when some state-level officials decided not to pursue this kind of engagement: “Sometimes—as I came to understand the more I worked in politics—a person’s reaction to religious ideas is not ideological at all, but personal,” he writes.

Several years later, he watched battles over abortion funding and contraception requirements in the Affordable Care Act with chagrin: The administration was unnecessarily antagonistic toward religious conservatives in both of those fights, Wear argues, and it eventually lost, anyway. When Louie Giglio, an evangelical pastor, was pressured to withdraw from giving the 2012 inaugural benediction because of his teachings on homosexuality, Wear almost quit.

Why were Democrats so "unnecessarily antagonistic" when some employers insisted that they should get to decide for their employees that the birth control pill is murder, and that they should get to decide what's in medical insurance? Why wouldn't Democrats say "sure, you are a guy who hates gays, but please give this inauguration benediction anyway, because otherwise it would be mean to your religion somehow and Michael Wear might threaten to quit"? It only seems fair that if anyone should be made to feel "less than" it should be the gay people, and not the guy who thinks they're icky.

Some of his colleagues also didn’t understand his work, he writes. He once drafted a faith-outreach fact sheet describing Obama’s views on poverty, titling it “Economic Fairness and the Least of These,” a reference to a famous teaching from Jesus in the Bible. Another staffer repeatedly deleted “the least of these,” commenting, “Is this a typo? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Who/what are ‘these’?”

Michael Wear has never met a clueless, idiot, no-good, very-bad editor before, because Michael Wear is a very, very lucky man.

Anyway, on to the questions!

Emma Green: Many people have noted that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in this election. Why do you think that was?

Michael Wear: It shows not just ineptitude, but the ignorance of Democrats in not even pretending to give these voters a reason to vote for them. We also need to have a robust conversation about the support or allowance for racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia in the evangelical tradition.

Hmmmm. So, according to Michael Wear, there is an allowance for racism, misogyny and Islamophobia in the evangelical tradition, but it is Democrats' fault evangelicals did not vote for the woman who loves Muslims and black people, for "reason." Certainly, Hillary Clinton never discussed her faith (yes she did, a lot) and why her faith insisted that she work "for the least of these." (Yes she did, a lot.) Donald Trump called everyone stupid, bragged about not paying taxes, and importuned his followers to beat up protesters. It is almost as though evangelicals who voted for Trump were not acting with Christian precepts in mind!

Liberals have been trying to convince Americans, and evangelicals in particular, that America is not a Christian nation. The 2016 election was evangelicals saying, “Yeah, you’re right! We can’t expect to have someone who is Christian like us. We can’t expect to have someone with a perfect family life. What we can expect is someone who can look out for us, just like every other group in this country is looking for a candidate who will look out for them.”

Oh look, Michael Wear just admitted that Christians voted for a very un-Christian dude! But that is Democrats' fault too, because didn't they, like, try to normalize not being a Christian??? As if some people are Jewish, and some are Muslim, and some are atheistical, and some just can't stop grabbing pussy? If Democrats had just stopped insisting on freedom of religion, and admitted that we should be a Christian theocracy, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

Green: Why is it, do you think, that some liberals—and specifically the Democratic Party—have been unwilling to do outreach to people who hold particular kinds of theological points of view?

Wear: They think, in some ways wrongly, but in other ways rightly, that it would put constraints around their policy agenda. So, for instance: You could make a case to evangelicals while trying to repeal the Hyde Amendment, [which prohibits federal funding for abortion in most circumstances,] but that’s really difficult. Reaching out to evangelicals doesn’t mean you have to become pro-life. It just means you have to not be so in love with how pro-choice you are, and so opposed to how pro-life we are.

That doesn't even make any sense. Let's try it again.

Another reason why they haven’t reached out to evangelicals in 2016 is that, no matter Clinton’s slogan of “Stronger Together,” we have a politics right now that is based on making enemies, and making people afraid. I think we’re seeing this with the Betsy DeVos nomination: It’s much easier to make people scared of evangelicals, and to make evangelicals the enemy, than trying to make an appeal to them.

Nope. The problem with Betsy DeVos is that she actually wants to dismantle public education, and Donald Trump is putting her in charge of public education. Is the reason she wants to dismantle public education because she is an evangelical? Probably, who knows? But if so, it makes sense to say "gee, that evangelicalism is problematic, in this particular case, if their whole deal is to DESTROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS SO THE ONLY OPTION IS FRED'S BIBLETORIUM AND SIDEHUG TEEN MARRIAGE HUB."

Now it is time to talk about abortions so much.

Green: I’ve written before about the rare breed that is the pro-life Democrat. Some portion of voters would likely identify as both pro-life and Democrat, but from a party point of view, it’s basically impossible to be a pro-life Democrat. Why do you think it is that the party has moved in that direction, and what, if anything, do you think it should do differently?

Wear: The spending that women’s groups have done is profound. 2012 was a year of historic investment from Planned Parenthood, and the campaign in 2016 topped it.

Number two, we’re seeing party disaffiliation as a way of signaling moral discomfort. A lot of pro-life Democrats were formerly saying, “My presence here doesn’t mean I agree with everything—I’m going to be an internal force that acts as a constraint or a voice of opposition on abortion.” Those people have mostly left the party.

Third, I think Democrats felt like their outreach wouldn’t be rewarded. For example: The president went to Notre Dame in May of 2009 and gave a speech about reducing the number of women seeking abortions. It was literally met by protests from the pro-life community. Now, there are reasons for this—I don’t mean to say that Obama gave a great speech and the pro-life community should have [acknowledged that]. But I think there was an expectation by Obama and the White House team that there would be more eagerness to find common ground.

So, just gonna stop you right there, Michael. Your example of a reason why Democrats refuse to do outreach on abortion is an example of OBAMA DOING OUTREACH ON ABORTION, and the evangelicals protesting him for it. But your whole thing is "Democrats refuse to do outreach to evangelicals, because they are bad and stupid and it's their fault evangelicals hate them." Do you ... do you feel like maybe you are misassigning your blame?

Green: One could argue that among most Democratic leaders, there’s a lack of willingness to engage with the question of abortion on moral terms. Even Tim Kaine, for example—a guy who, by all accounts, deeply cares about his Catholic faith, and has talked about his personal discomfort with abortion—fell into line.

How would you characterize Democrats’ willingness to engage with the moral question of abortion, and why is it that way?

STOP IT. STOP IT RIGHT NOW. YOU JUST SAID DEMOCRATS WON'T LET PRO-LIFE PEOPLE INTO THE PARTY AND YOU ENDED WITH AN EXAMPLE OF THE GUY THEY MADE THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE ACTUALLY BEING PRO-LIFE. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS YOU ARE KILLING ME.

Wear: There were a lot of things that were surprising about Hillary’s answer [to a question about abortion] in the third debate. She didn’t advance moral reservations she had in the past about abortion. She also made the exact kind of positive moral argument for abortion that women’s groups—who have been calling on people to tell their abortion stories—had been demanding.

Hillary Clinton didn't apologize for abortion, in her answer about abortion, and therefore the Democrats are mean to Christians. Got it dude. Got it.

The Democratic Party used to welcome people who didn’t support abortion into the party. [LIKE TIM KAINE. SEE ABOVE. DUDE THEY MADE VEEP NOMINEE, WHO IS PRO-LIFE.] We are now so far from that, it’s insane. This debate, for both sides, is not just about the abortion rate; it’s not just about the legality of it. It’s a symbolic debate. It’s symbolic on the pro-choice side about the autonomy of women and their freedom to do what they want with their bodies. On the pro-life side, they care not just about the regulations around abortion, but whether there’s a cultural affirmation of life.

Even the symbolic olive branches have become less acceptable.

I hate you. I hate you so much.

So let's talk about abortion! My mom is pro-life. And before you go "well she wouldn't *outlaw* abortion though," yeah if she had her druthers she probably would. If she believes there is a baby in there, why WOULDN'T she try to outlaw it? And yes, she's a Democrat, and a lifelong grassroots activist. Does she feel that feminists are too focused on abortion? She does! Does she feel that party activists with a litmust test that anyone who's pro-life can't be a good Democrat are full of shit? That too! Did she vote for fucking Trump because of it? NO BECAUSE SHE IS NOT AN IDIOT. Does she want to punish women for sex and close all the Planned Parenthoods? NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. Does she feel Obama has been oppressing her by mandating insurance include birth control? GOOD LORD NO GET OVER YOURSELF. Does she think most pro-life activists care about a "cultural affirmation of life"? NOT AS LONG AS THEY'RE BANNING FUCKING FOOD STAMPS SHE DOESN'T.

Fuck you Michael Wear for promoting this bullshit, you weaseling whiny snivelmonster.

Green: If you were talking to a secular Democrat who is skeptical about the need to do outreach to conservative evangelicals or make a compromise on language surrounding social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., what would you say?

Wait a minute, Emma Green. Have you asked anyone whether *evangelicals* or *Republicans* need to "make a compromise" on language about abortion and gay marriage? No? HUH. WEIRD.

Wear: It’s sad that this is a throwaway response, but it’s the duty of statesmanship. It’s the duty of living in a pluralistic society to make a case to all folks.

Unless you are Donald Trump, then it's all just Victory Tours and Betsy DeVos at Education.

The second would be that America is still a profoundly religious nation. There are reports that high-level Democratic leadership was not interested in reaching out to white Catholics. And they sure didn’t have a lot of interest in white evangelicals. That’s a huge portion of the electorate to throw out. So if the civic motivation doesn’t get you, let me make the practical argument: It doesn’t help you win elections if you’re openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans’ lives.

I don't know. Maybe they didn't spend a ton of time trying to reach white evangelicals because of how, in your own words, when Obama did that he was met with protests. Or maybe they know white evangelicals have been fed such bullshit for so long, right from the pulpit, that they're not going to believe anything said by the woman they want to "lock up." Hell, they don't believe Obama helped the economy in Elkhart, Indiana, which went from 20 percent unemployment to under four -- sure, it's home to an RV industry that was almost dead before Obama saved millions of jobs by bailing out the auto industry, and getting gas to $2, but they're DAMNED SURE the robust economy ain't the black guy. And they're giving Trump credit for it already.

Once again, Hillary Clinton wasn't disdainful toward anyone's religion. She was disdainful toward the people -- she put the number at about half Trump's voters, which was probably low -- who were thrilled he was retweeting white supremacists and calling Mexicans rapists and women pigs. If those people were also religious, well then maybe, like you said, a conversation needs to happen about "support" for racism and misogyny in the evangelical tradition.

The Democratic Party is effectively broken up into three even thirds right now: religiously unaffiliated people, white Christians who are cultural Christians, and then people of color who are religious.

Green: And religious minorities.

Wear: Well, right, but because of their numbers—I’m speaking in general terms.

LOL dude. Just lol.

[Atlantic]