Sometimes getting Democrats, (and progressives, moderate Republicans, libertarians and so on) to change how they think about and respond to the religious right is like the old light bulb joke:

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

Just one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

We have been seeing encouraging signs for some time that we really do want to change — but change can be hard, and it can take time, and well, drop down on the priorities list. Indeed, it can mean acquiring new and seemingly strange areas of knowledge, and then of course, we might have to consider changing long-cherished ways of doing politics.

But given that the Religious right as a political movement has been one of the most powerful factions in American politics for some time, and their candidates are winning elections for public office at all levels of government in ways that everyone would have thought impossible a generation ago, maybe we oughtta really, seriously, you know… change the light bulb?

Here is a beginning of a discussion of one interesting but particularly challenging pieces of the puzzle. One of the harder things for most of us, is figuring out what to make of some evangelical notions of the End Times.

The Left Behind series of novels and movies has made the evangelical theology of “premillennial dispensationalism” a big national and even international matter. This is actually not a new issue. During the presidential election of 1984, Ronald Reagan was asked about several statements he had made regarding his apparent belief that we were living in Biblically prophesized “end times.” People were concerned about whether certain interpretations of Biblical prophesy might be driving U.S. foreign policy. (I don’t think this was the case, but it was a fair concern.) This question came from a reporter during a nationally televised debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. Reagan replied, accurately, that Jesus himself had said only his Father knows the time of his return. That pretty much settled the matter as a public issue — until LaHaye’s novels came along. Many commentators raise the same concerns about the apocalypse today — often in apocalyptic terms. But these writings often way overstate the nature of the beliefs of most people, and makes trying to understand what various Christian sects believe about the biblical book of Revelation, and what it means for ordinary people, additionally baffling. Fortunately Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates in Somerville, MA is especially good at explaining it in useful ways to non-evangelical audiences. He has a post about it today on Talk to Action, crossposted at DefCon.

I am not going to go into it in any detail, rather commend this short, but probably provocative essay for your thoughtful consideration. Berlet has a point that goes beyond the details of the theology of Tim LaHaye. (There are books and articles for coming up to speed on that stuff). For years Berlet has argued that Democrats and progressives can compete for the white evangelical vote — but they have to not only want to do it, but they have to learn how. He suggests that one aspect is learning enough about what they believe in order to be able to address their concerns and not behave in an offensive manner — just as we would anyone else. The temptation to ridicule what one does not understand is understandable, but it is not necessarily smart politics.

“Because the leaders of the Religious Right have mobilized such a large voter base,” he writes, “they regularly have meetings with powerful political leaders, including the President. Today the Religious Right plays a major role in shaping foreign and domestic policies.

We can change this situation. The Religious Right does not speak for all Christians or even all evangelicals. The leaders of the Religious Right sometimes argue for policy positions that make their own followers uncomfortable. In a constitutional democracy, the ideal path for the nation is always open to debate; and the idea of God is too big for small minds to shackle. If we want to defend the Constitution, we must learn the religious beliefs of those evangelicals who dominate the Religious Right, treat them respectfully, and yet engage them in a critical public conversation over the appropriate boundaries for civic political debate set by the founders and framers of our nation.

Berlet’s optimism is hard-headed. It is based not only on his scholarship and his commitment to a progressive politics, but his real-world experience of engagement with the kinds of people he is writing about. I think what is especially helpful about Berlet’s approach is that he reframes the entire matter in the best George Lakoff sense of the word. Rather than dwelling on the wonky details of theology, he goes for how we might begin to think about it in useful ways, and find fresh political attitudes in ourselve — framed in terms of our own values — to begin a more rational and productive approach to the politics of the occasion. I will add, and I know he would agree, that what he proposes will not work with everyone of the premillenial persuasion. But we should not find that necessarily discouraging. There is nothing that works with all of the people all of the time.