Not long ago I participated in a special convocation on faith, morality, and citizenship at the Yale Divinity School, my alma mater. Pundit/columnist E.J. Dionne, Sen. Gary Hart, and U.S. Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) were among the luminaries sparking conversation. Dionne and others tried to suggest that the era of the Christian Right is now drawing to a close and that we are moving toward a healthier middle ground, with big segments of Evangelical leaders breaking ranks with the hard right on issues of poverty, climate change, and overall foreign and military policy.

I demurred because (a) I think this viewpoint represents a misreading of what successful movement building means-and these Christian Right elders, with their networks and "universities" and media apparatus, undoubtedly were movement builders; and (b) I think this viewpoint underestimates how much the new so-called "common ground agenda" has already yielded to the Christian Right in significant and damaging ways.

Let me amplify both points slightly. It seems to me very much of a stretch to say that the era of the Christian Right is "over" when the movement has built an infrastructure and a set of institutions that the so-called Christian Left can only dream about. With or without Falwell, the Arlington Group-the nerve center and steering committee of the movement-continues to function, the movement's fundraising capacity has never been greater, its next-generation leadership development continues to be incredibly effective, and its electoral machinery (501(c)(3) rules be damned!) remains in place.

Indeed.

And here is part of what Laarman sees as left out of the "common ground" agenda:

One does not see or hear systemic critiques of the free market ideology that ensures immiseration abroad and the proliferation of low-wage jobs domestically-and that, parenthetically, guarantees a continuing massive influx of desperate immigrants.

One does not hear critiques, either theological or practical, of the overall imperial project that gives us wars of choice and over 1500 U.S. overseas military bases. One does not hear a strong rousing defense of the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, or other foundational principles of the Constitutional system. One does not even hear a clarion call for a return to progressive taxation: the one thing that could actually fund an attack on child poverty and a decent universal system of health care.

Most importantly, one hears nothing at all about the close connections between poverty and women's reproductive health, or about poverty and the oppressive religio-juridical strictures against women's rights in effect in this and many other countries.

I think it is fair to add that the growing warm and fuzzy common groundism that is leaving eyes moist and hearts softened at the expense of the poor while turning a blind eye to the historic excesses of major corporations -- also leaves a great deal of ground erroded in areas of separation of church and state, including and especially, the radical retreat in even using the phrase -- as proposed by Democratic Party consultants Mara Vancerslice and Eric Sapp.

I think that Laarman is onto something important. The urge for common ground is natural enough; we all prefer unity over division; and many of us find the culture war rather tiresome or at least tiring.  But I find that too many appeals to common ground, are as Laarman says, more about capitulation on important matters of principle and public policy rather than authentic approaches to finding unity amidst differences. This is a common ground that is far more exclusive than it is inclusive.  I wrote awhile back:  

It really should go without saying that becoming the religious right is not the best way to counter it.

I also wrote, regarding the matter of church & state and the Dems:

Of course, most folks, no matter how well-educated or involved in public life, are not necessarily up on such details; and how politicians navigate these things can be tricky. I appreciate that, and I really don't care whether a pol goes around saying "separation of church and state" or not. That is not my point.

It is, however, not unreasonable to expect that candidates for relevant state and national offices will respect and understand the term and what it means. This is a very significant area of constitutional thought that has evolved over a long period of time. It is not something about which anyone should be glib, underinformed, or entirely silent.
My main point here is that the reason that Vanderslice feels she has to get Democratic pols to not use the term is because it has been effectively demonized by the religious right, and their gaggle of historical revisionists, in the service of Christian nationalism. One cannot effectively contend for power with Christian nationalism over the long haul without the clear, unambiguous doctrine of separation church and state as a guidepost. The attack on the phrase has been going on for a long time as the religious right political movement -- one of the largest and most powerful in American history -- continues to play a major role in American public life. But Vanderslice argues that Democratic politicians should abandon the phrase, and in effect, concede the point. And she does so by utilizing the religious right's main talking point as her rationale: The phrase does not appear in, and does not accurately represent the meaning of the first Amendment. Well, Mara Vanderslice, Nino Scalia's gotta be lovin' it

I think Laarman's take away lesson is that we need to listen carefully when phrases like common ground and especially moderation, are invoked.  Both terms may very well leave out things that many, even most people care about. Depending on who is using them, they may mean that such values as economic justice, reproductive rights, gay and lesbian civil rights, and separation of church and state occupy ground they would rather not be held in common. Having seized the definitions of moderation and/or common ground, the unstated definition is both disingenuous and reactionary, albeit presented in soothing tones and careful diction that may not sound anything like Falwell -- but nevertheless silently champion his legacy more powerfully than many a Falwell wannabe.