Letter from Robert Reich -- a good read

I got this email today, and thought a lot of DUers would enjoy reading it. Reich is talking about things we've been discussing here, particularly the "moral issues" aspect of the election, and what the Dems might want to do to counter this in future elections. BTW, this email gave permission for people to forward it, so it should be ok to post in its entireity.


*************************************
Letter from Bob Reich
November 4, 2004
*************************************

First, remember you're not alone.

Imagine standing in a room with 99 other people -- a random sample of America. 48 of them voted with you, against George Bush. All you need to do over the next few years is convince two of the others to join with you, and you've got a majority. We've got a majority.

Second, learn the power of a moral message (if you didn't know it already). Republicans ran on a moral agenda -- God, guns, gays, and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Democrats ran on a policy agenda -- affordable health care, deficit reduction, and combating terrorism through stronger international alliances and a smarter strategy. George Bush spoke about right and wrong in moral terms -- as matters of righteousness and faith. John Kerry spoke of right and wrong in pragmatic terms -- for example, saying he had the right way to get the economy moving again or to fight Al Qaida, and George Bush was going the wrong way.

I don't think most Americans rejected John Kerry's policies. It was Bush's moral vision they found more compelling. When politicians talk about having a plan for this or a policy for that, many eyes glaze over. But when they speak with righteous indignation -- with passion and conviction about what is morally right to do or morally offensive -- they can inspire the nation.

My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. But perhaps Democrats need somewhat fewer plans and policies, and a bit more moral conviction. They also need to talk more about faith -- faith in what this great nation can accomplish if we work together.

Democrats used to talk in moral terms -- about fighting for civil rights, for example. What could Democrats say now and in the future? That it's morally wrong to give huge tax cuts to the rich while cutting social programs for the poor and working class -- especially when the gap between the rich and everyone else is wider than it's been in more than a century. That we have a moral obligation to give every American child a good education and decent health care. That it's morally wrong that millions of Americans who work full time don't earn enough to keep their families out of poverty. And much else.

My faith -- and yes, it is a matter of faith, a great leap of faith -- is that in all these respects, and many more, this nation can become a more just society.

I'm not saying Democrats have to adopt my particular moral positions. But unless or until Democrats return to larger questions of public morality, they won't inspire the American public. Plans and policies are important, of course. But there's no substitute for offering a vision of what we can become as a nation -- and giving citizens the faith we can get there.

So keep up the good fight. You're needed more now than ever.

-- Bob Reich

I've got a lot of friends down in the dumps right now.

I'm sure Reich's words will be helpful to a lot of folks.

It still bums me out to think that he could be our governor right now instead of Mitt, if only he had gotten the Dem party nomination.

We need to bring back the words of Roosevelt. He got the original "New Deal" passed. We need to study how he did it, and apply the same tactics today. Why should we reinvent the wheel, when he seemed to have crafted the perfect one the first time?

:kick:

I disagree. When Kerry was general and broadbrushed the criticism was that he had no plan. When he describes a plan, the word is he has no values and it becomes a joke when he says the word plan. I don't think it's the content of his message or the DNC platform that's the problem.

No matter the issue or platform, the candidate taking the low road was able to frame the issue to his liking. This is about framing communication for yourself, and as importantly, for the other candidate.

with the moral disconnect of being on the one hand 'so called christians' and on the other, being for the war in Iraq, being for the death penalty, being against providing for the poor, being for sending manufacturing/IT jobs overseas, being against health care for every American, saying nothing about the fact that over 1,000 young people died behind a blatant lie and basically ABIDING A PROVEN, CONTEMPTABLE LIAR IN THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND.

The 'camel through the eye of the needle' message should have been pounded home on them--make them stand in the center of their truth and take their ass-whippin' for it. They should have been beaten back with their own bibles for being the moral hypocrits that they are, but the Dem leadership wanted to play nicey nice with them... didn't want to challenge the fence sitters. The repukes made sure the population was out for blood and we thought that feeding them salad should have satisfied them.

Those in charge of Kerry's campaign strategy are to blame. At every turn, they took the wrong one. Swift boat should have been dealt a decisive, mortal blow, but they chose to play nicey-nice. The John Kerry of the 60's and 70's should have been unleashed--he went up against the most corrupt president before the current one that this country has ever known and he came out shining... even Nixon had to give him props in the end.

It should have been a campaign that should have met the unabashed emotional vitriol the repukes were dishing out bite for bite, but had the trump card of the moral christian obligation that their bibles charge them with carrying with regards to the plans of action Kerry was going to enact upon inauguration. They lunched on their opportunity every chance they had and their message got blown out of the arena.

Our people need to start reframing the debate right now. I fear though that they are so lame and clueless they still won't get it.

Robert Reich always gets it right.

will have plenty to become "righteously indignant." Even if it goes nowhere, a bill to impeach should be introduced just to get it on the record. High crimes and misdomeanors. An illegal war. Lying to the public and Congress.

Kerry's message was more intellectual. Bush's was more emotional. Kerry's supporters are, therefore, more intelligent. However, the U.S. has been systematically dumbed down by right wing talks shows, reality TV and the other shit on the media.

And that works in favor of Bush and other politicians of his ilk.

One moment when some of the shortcomings of John Kerry as a candidate and perhaps the Democratic party as a whole came through to me in that great rally on Election Eve when Bruce Springsteen introduced John Kerry.

Springsteen, the songwriter, spoke beautifully about a higher patriotism and the country that lives in our hearts. John Kerry, the candidate, spoke in a scattergun fashion of programs and figures that somehow didn't seem to connect in a coherent whole.

I think that there's something in the modern Democratic party that fails to connect with ordinary people who aren't going to take the time to read through every detail of every program. Somehow we need to boil our philosophy down into something that can be expressed simply and eloquently as universal good. This may not be easy given the contradictions inherent in our coalition but it has to be done if we want to be able to touch the hearts and minds of people who do not automatically agree with us.