[Mb-civic] The Message Thing

[Jef Bek]

The New York Times

August 4, 2005

The Message Thing
By JIM WALLIS

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, is the author of "God's
Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."