Back to basics.

There has been a slight stirring of late hinting at a possible rapproachment between religion and liberalism. It is a hopeful, if often exasperating, sign.

Baptist theologian Harvey Cox assures Nation readers (January 1) that many religious people share the magazine's egalitarian social vision, and points out that the progressive tradition in American politics has long drawn on religious sources. "Progressives have begun to realize that to purge the public square of religion is to cut the roots of the values that nourish our fondest causes," Cox writes.

Too true. The Nation's comments on religion, and especially Catholicism, are usually limited to a supercilious sneer, but Cox has positive things to say about the U.S. Catholic bishops and the pope's defense of the poor and immigrants. He rehearses the role of religion in the civil rights, antiwar, and social justice movements. Cox rightly warns that "politics is something more than administrative processing. Either it is linked to morality or it withers." Still, though caustic in his criticism of the religious right, he rarely challenges the Nation's putatively left-wing readers. This trimming of religion's demands is most glaring in Cox's treatment of the single issue that broke up the historic coalition of political and religious progressives: He does not mention abortion.

In the neoliberal Washington Monthly (December, 1995), associate editor Amy Waldman takes a utilitarian tone. In her article "Why We Need a Religious Left," she argues that "Liberals have a secret weapon in the moral power of religion. They've used it in the past. Why not now?" Waldman bemoans the prejudices of secular liberals while chastising the religious left for its political incompetence. The eloquence of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops is praised, especially its 1984 pastoral letter on the economy. Still, Waldman seems largely ignorant of the long history of progressive Catholic social teaching and action, and patronizingly caricatures the "power of religion" as one of emotion rather than reason.

Waldman is aware of how abortion shattered progressive coalitions, noting that "prolife advocates are more likely than prochoice advocates to strongly support government assistance for the unemployed." But like Cox, Waldman seems more drawn to the cliches of prophetic religion than to the principled realism of religious ethics.

The most remarkable attempt to come to terms with the disaffection between rights-based liberalism and the religious sensibilities of many Americans appeared in the New Republic. Naomi Wolf s article "Our Bodies, Our Souls" (October 16,1995) stunned her prochoice allies by calling for a reappropriation of a "moral framework" surrounding abortion and a recognition of the human life of the fetus as well as the moral culpability of those procuring abortions. Wolf's argument is finally unconvincing, for it sanctions abortion as an evil that nevertheless must be permitted to secure women's equality. Still, her honesty in judging current abortion practice a "failure," in conceding the dehumanizing effect of abortion-rights rhetoric, and in calling for prochoicers to "submit ... to a morality beyond just our bodies and our selves," is an important step toward the res- urrection of a morally coherent and politically effective liberalism.

Cox, Waldman, and Wolf are right to seek a progressive future in a return to moral argument and religion. The hope of some liberals for a society dedicated to equality and justice but somehow unencumbered by a strong common moral code has proven to be a recipe for indifference, economic stratification, and a dangerous cynicism about government altogether. Liberalism's flirtation with moral relativism is coming to an end. The social justice and freedom traditionally celebrated by the left cannot be sustained if liberalism fails to articulate a shared morality and a compelling vision of the good life. By insisting that morality is intrinsically a common project, and that without it even the privileged are poor in spirit, religion has long provided a highly reliable description of reality. It can still provide the foundation for a very practical politics.