I caught a bit of the remarks during one of C-SPAN broadcasts of a meeting of various candidates for DNC leadership. The concern for values was clear, including trying to frame various Democratic Party themes in value language. This is fine as far as it goes, since government involves value judgments, and many of the criticisms of the current leadership are ultimately ones dealing with how corrupt their values truly are. The tone and nature of the language alone suggests that the critics are speaking from their hearts, not solely as political opponents.
Nonetheless, it troubled me when Tim Roemer spoke of "Judeo-Christian" values and a more obscure candidate underlined how Democrats believed in God. Is this a requirement for being a party member now? Also, do Jews and Christians (whose "values" arguably are at times not soooo syncretic) really want some party official stating what their religious values (are "Judeo-Christian" values supposed to be religiously neutral?) might be?
I'd add that blacks remain an important part of the democratic coalition, a group that is disproportionately Muslim. Are we to assume J-C covers them too? Likewise, important voters and backers might be members of other moral traditions, and be turned off by such language. Is such blatant god (God) talk necessary to obtain those important swing and new voters?
---
Talking about troubled, I was talking to someone quite troubled with how the U.S. government interned Japanese during WWII. She was not taught such things in school, but first really was informed about the matter when she saw a mainstream movie about the matter.* She also was surprised to learn about the intricacies of the wrongdoing of the Nixon Administration, learning about the matter while watching a documentary on the History Channel.
She was around my age while the Nixon events took place, but did not take much notice of them. The whole matter also troubled her, though such political skullduggery fit more with her cynical views about politics. The Japanese experience hit close to her basic beliefs about American values.
Much can be said about this, including that her experiences and views are surely not unique. For instance, the teaching of history leaves a lot to be desired, and the average individual really does not take much notice of much of the stuff that fills this blog. After all, they have families, careers, and ordinary everyday concerns.
This is not to say that many so-called ordinary Americans are not concerned about this sort of thing, but many are largely ignorant about many of the facts. Or, really do not want to accept the true magnitude of how their ideals were violated. Ignorance might be said to be bliss, if the alternative is to becry how our country put hundred of thousands in concentration camps or lied their way to war.
And, such matters -- simplified for those who might feel my analysis is a bit too patronizing -- help the powers that be, who twist the concerns and ideals of the American public for their own purposes. The future activities of those who challenge those now in power must take this into consideration, offering a competing viewpoint, one that helps our putative leaders to truly lead and guide their electors in the right direction.
---
* Come See The Paradise, which I have not seen, but it received lackluster reviews. Movies are often not the best way to experience history, especially since entertainment aims often clash with authenticity and true complexity. Nonetheless, they have their place and can help inform and influence the views of the country about history. In fact, in various ways they clearly do, as the once popularity of Westerns suggested.
And, especially if care is supplied to prevent an excessive twisting of history (see, e.g., JFK and Mississippi Burning), this historical subject matter provides fruitful resources for film plots. Various nominees for Academy Awards alone suggest this. They also provide some good, if probably unintentional, comedy -- see various biblical epics, including The Bible.