Just discovered Amy Sullivan's June Washington Monthly article, "Do Democrats Have a Prayer?" which tries to persuade Democratic candidates, like Dean et al to try harder to appeal to folks who consider themselves "religious".

On one hand, it must be recognized this is pure positioning. The Democratic Party will do what the Democratic Party will do, and the question here is tailoring the presentation of an existing message, not modifying its content to fit the gospels. But then again, the same could easily be said about the Republican Party...

Many of these "swing faithful" have also begun to wonder if Bush's rhetoric of compassion and justice will be matched by policy substance. They could be courted by the right kind of Democrat--one who, like Bush, can speak the language of faith sincerely...

She also points to past successes using this strategy:

Despite the claims of the highly vocal religious right, this sort of religious moral vision isn't the exclusive province of the GOP. In fact, the most religious presidents of the past 30 years were Democrats: Carter and Clinton. Both were able to avoid the fates of religiously bland Democratic nominees--including George McGovern and Walter Mondale, each the son of a minister. And both defeated Republican opponents who had either loose religious ties or, at the very least, an aversion to discussing religion publicly.

(And of course the faithful can see how well this worked out in both cases mentioned here.)

But the article also contains the evidence for the reason it's own advice will ultimately continually fail:

In order to attract the support of the faithful, Democrats need a candidate and staffers who understand their mindset and can speak their language. Unfortunately, the silence of Democratic presidential candidates on religious matters is matched by the cluelessness of the party apparatus. The Democratic National Committee has voter outreach desks that, according to the DNC Web site, "serve the Democratic Party by increasing political participation among all segments of the Democratic Community." There are outreach efforts to the old and the young, ethnic groups, veterans, members of the military, women, and the disabled community, but none to religious Americans of any faith.

While the Democratic electorate is fairly religious, professional Democrats--the party operatives and Hill staff in Washington--are generally unfamiliar with, and sometimes even quite antagonistic to, religion. As Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne observes, "The core problem for liberals is the extent to which they are viewed as arrogant and distant from the understanding of ordinary people. Their attitude toward faith is to look down their noses."

Although many elected Democrats are religious, their staffs generally are not.

And there is the core of the problem. Critics of Republicans often accuse them of cynically using "faith" issues or language to win political battles. And while undoubtedly this is true sometimes, it is also true that many of those most accused of "pandering" in this manner actually seem to believe what they say, as do many of their staffers.

In contrast, the inner mechanism which runs the Democratic Party is not merely neutral to but, as Amy admits, actively hostile to religious faith, and Christianity in particular.

Sadly, unless the Democratic power structure wants to step down, ultimately the best a traditional believer will get is something like the Clinton and Carter presidencies: Governing packages which are basicly secular or even atheistic, wrapped up in a coating which will appear palatable to those with faith.

I want two strong parties, so that they are forced to compete with each other on the issues that matter to us. In my opinion, the Democratic Party is falling down on the job by being so lame in this regard.