SINCE the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.
Say Jim… are you including yourself in this mix?
So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.
Say Jim… don’t you “frame” yourself as a somewhat of a moderate, somewhat of a critic of both extremes of the theological and political spectrum and yet aren’t you in reality quite liberal and leftist? Is that sort of “framing” honest?
Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for-as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.
Say Jim… in the interest of full disclosure, I can’t help but wonder when you’re going to fully come clean as to your own politics and your own agenda? Hmmm?
Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.
Say Jim…. don’t you mean they need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them as you define those convictions and values?
The discussion that shapes our political future should be one about moral values, but the questions to ask are these: Whose values? Which values? And how broadly and deeply will our political values be defined? Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda, rather than linguistic strategies to sell an old set of ideologies and interest group demands.
Say Jim… in the interest of full disclosure, don’t you mean to be intricately involved in broadly and deeply defining and shaping old ideas and repackaging then as new ones?
To be specific, I offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.
First, somebody must lead on the issue of poverty, and right now neither party is doing so. The Democrats assume the poverty issue belongs to them, but with the exception of John Edwards in his 2004 campaign, they haven't mustered the gumption to oppose a government that habitually favors the wealthy over everyone else. Democrats need new policies to offer the 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, who live below the poverty line, as well as the 9.8 million families one recent study identified as "working hard but falling short."
In fact, the Democrats should draw a line in the sand when it comes to wartime tax cuts for the wealthy, rising deficits, and the slashing of programs for low-income families and children. They need proposals that combine to create a "living family income" for wage-earners, as well as a platform of "fair trade," as opposed to just free trade, in the global economy. Such proposals would cause a break with many of the Democrats' powerful corporate sponsors, but they would open the way for a truly progressive economic agenda. Many Americans, including religious voters who see poverty as a compelling issue of conscience, desire such a platform.
Say Jim… this sounds a lot like the old Democratic message that promotes class envy and engages in verbal trickery. In fact, aren’t the Democrats already carping on tax cuts for the wealthy, rising deficits and the slashing of programs for low-income families and children? How Jim is this “new” message any different from the old?
Similarly, a growing number of American Christians speak of the environment as a religious concern - one of stewardship of God's creation. The National Association of Evangelicals recently called global warming a faith issue. But Republicans consistently choose oil and gas interests over a cleaner world. The Democrats need to call for the reversal of these priorities. They must insist that private interests should never obstruct our country's path to a cleaner and more efficient energy future, let alone hold our foreign policy hostage to the dictates of repressive regimes in the Middle East.
Say Jim… I think the Democrats have been singing this song for some time now pal… again I ask, sincerely, where’s the new message and how is it different from the old
On the issues that Republicans have turned into election-winning "wedges," Democrats will win back "values voters" only with fresh ideas. Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose," or the alternative, "safe, legal and rare." More than 1 million abortions are performed every year in this country. The Democrats should set forth proposals that aim to reduce that number by at least half. Such a campaign could emphasize adoption reform, health care, and child care; combating teenage pregnancy and sexual abuse; improving poor and working women's incomes; and supporting reasonable restrictions on abortion, like parental notification for minors (with necessary legal protections against parental abuse). Such a program could help create some much-needed common ground.
Say Jim… you and Hillary seem to be singing from the same hymnal on this? And isn’t she an experienced re-packager of old ideas as new ones? Doesn’t she like to portray herself as a moderate when in reality she’s quite liberal? Jim, come clean, are you a Hillary Clinton for President supporter and maybe even an advisor?
As for "family values," the Democrats can become the truly pro-family party by supporting parents in doing the most important and difficult job in America: raising children. They need to adopt serious pro-family policies, including some that defend children against Hollywood sleaze and Internet pornography. That's an issue that has come to be identified with the religious right. But when I say in public lectures that being a parent is now a countercultural activity, I've found that liberal and conservative parents agree. Rather than fighting over gay marriage, the Democrats must show that it is indeed possible to be "pro-family" and in favor of gay civil rights at the same time.
Say Jim… where’ve you been man? How is any of this “fresh”? The Democrats have been at the forefront of attempting to be pro-family while supporting gay unions. And yet they continue to lose elections. Jim, if you’re getting paid for this kind of advice, I’d like to suggest you give some of the money back. It’s the only ethical thing to do. And it would show that you’re serious about your morality.
Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases - something Democrats should advocate as the first step toward bringing other countries to our side. While Republicans have argued that international institutions are too weak to be relied upon in the age of terrorism, Democrats should suggest reforming them, creating a real International Criminal Court with an enforcement body, for example, as well as an international force capable of intervening in places like Darfur. Stronger American leadership in reducing global poverty would also go a long way toward improving the country's image around the world.
Say Jim… Bill Clinton was a big supporter of something like an International Criminal Court but mounting opposition by people with sound sense won the day then and would win the day now. Thank God. As to reducing global poverty, even Bono has praised President Bush of late on those grounds Jim… do you now see Bono as a defacto member of the religious right?
Until Democrats are willing to be honest about the need for new social policy and compelling political vision, they will never get the message right. Find the vision first, and the language will follow.
Say Jim… find the integrity to be honest about who you are and what you’re up to, find the character to concede that so much of your advice here is merely the reformulation of the message being pushed by Democrats for years, find the ethos to admit that you and Sojourners are to the Democratic party what Falwell and Robertson are to the Republican party.
Shrill partisans.
UPDATE: Scott over at Theopraxis is kinder and gentler than I on Wallis but is rightly suspicious:
... the more I think about what seems to be the approach of a lot of Christian political thought that finds problems with the current administration, the more I wonder if we're simply lacking in imagination, in the ability to think of ways to be an alternative community outside the bounds of the American political system. In other words, if part of the problem is that Christianity is too often bound in public perception to the Religious Right (and consequently to a secular political organization), then I think we do ourselves no favors by binding ourselves just as tightly to a different organization, creating a Religious Left or what-have-you. The main problem here, I think, is the perception that because we live in Caesar's empire, we must engage in the politics of Caesar.
>>aren’t you in reality quite liberal and leftist?
What is a "leftist"? Could you define that term that you so freely use in derision? Is it the 99% of people who are less conserative than you?
>>Say Jim…. don’t you mean they need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them as you define those convictions and values?
You say that implying that Jim is hypocritical. But would you please acknowledge that what you and your conservative kind want is for the country to focus on values as *you* define them? Isn't that what the culture war is all about? Or are you actually "tolerant"? (I certainly hope not!)
>>In fact, aren’t the Democrats already carping on tax cuts for the wealthy, rising deficits and the slashing of programs for low-income families and children? How Jim is this “new” message any different from the old?
Uh, why would Jim need a new message if the old one hasn't been heard? Is there some value in changing the message? My Bible says that there should be "no poor among you." My Bible says that God's justice is to take care of the needy in our midst. I'd prefer this not be through the governmental apparatus that '60s liberal Jim Wallis favors. But America made a deal that our gov't would assume the role for taking care of the needy. Until the Church can come up with a plan to do it better, in a way that is obedient to Scripture, conservative christians should just shut up about issues such as welfare reform. Their religiosly cloaked rhetoric is merely self-serving.
What's really sad here is that Jim's beliefs come from his interpretation of Scripture but I don't think you can even consider that it might be correct or even have value because it actually has some coincidence with the message of the liberal bogeymen.
I kinda wish Jim's 15 minutes would be up soon, too. He's the flavor of the month for Dems trying to figure out how to look like they have "values". But Jim has gotten his hands dirty in the past forty years working directly with poor people through the wonderful Church of the Savior in Washington, DC. I have a tremendous respect for that and would hope that would buy him an audience with you. I appreciate much of what Jim says. I have no hope, like he does, that the Democrats are the answer. But honestly, why do you and conservative christians think that Republicans are?
>>you and Sojourners are to the Democratic party what Falwell and Robertson are to the Republican party.
Well, that won't be true until Jim starts "baptizing people and teaching them to vote Republican", as Jerry Falwell said last year.
>>Shrill partisans.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Zossima | Friday, August 05, 2005 at 11:56 PM
I just finished reading Wallis' book, which is on the same theme. He is an evangelical, but one who is primarily a pacifist. He does hate abortion, but is blind to his own prejudices.
His book makes the assumption that all most Evangelicals care about is souls, not the poor. He is just like the liberals who control the PCUSA, who push the liberal political agenda, and think it is something new.
Posted by: Presbypoet | Saturday, August 06, 2005 at 12:06 AM
Zossima,
I believe you've missed my point. I'll allow it wasn't intentional, I'll even entertain the idea that it's my fault, that I didn't communicate things clearly or effectively.
I certainly hold to certain perspectives, certain ideals. I do so rather confidently. But I don't mask it. I don't attempt to portray myself as being one thing while in actuality being something else.
I am who I am. Period.
Jim Wallis likes to paint himself as a moderate. He likes to portray himself as that which he thinks most people are. Middle of the roaders.
Wallis is no moderate. Unless in the same breath we can say that Fallwell and Robertson are. And we can't.
I would love an audience with Mr. Wallis. I'd bluntly ask him to come clean as to his politics. He has every right to be a liberal, to be a leftist, to hold progressive ideas. I just don't think he needs to hide it. I know more than a few liberals who are in your face with there ideaology and who I can respect in that they're not trying to hide it. Wallis is. Why?
For me to be the pot calling Wallis' kettle black would mean that I'm trying to in some way cloak who I am and what I think.
Look around this blog Zossima. What in hell am I hiding?
Posted by: Rick | Saturday, August 06, 2005 at 11:28 AM
Presbypoet,
Thanks for coming by. Stopped by your place and was touched. I was especially moved by Goodbye J.:
It was hard I know.
Hard to watch me die.
Remember this lesson about love.
If you love you will be hurt.
Let the pain remind you
of the joy we knew and shared.
Some think to escape the pain.
They will never know our joy.
This is not the end you know
but only start of eternity.
I am with God now
at peace with our Master.
Know for sure we will meet again
where pain does cease
where joy abounds
where tears are washed away.
Also, tell the one who writes
I met a funny looking bunny.
She also sends her love.
Until we meet again, goodbye beloved.
From your dog
Heard May 12, 2004 © Presbypoet
On the blogroll you go.
Posted by: Rick | Saturday, August 06, 2005 at 11:37 AM
Okay, maybe I've got you wrong. Your post seems to assume that Jim has something to hide. What is he hiding? Please cite quotations from Jim in which he is advocating a far more liberal "leftist" position than what he is saying in public these days.
You're not hiding anything, Rick. I like that. But you are a shrill partisan. You just don't like it that others are for the other side.
Posted by: Zossima | Sunday, August 07, 2005 at 05:12 PM