We need a competing moral message

Of the 22 percent citing values as the most important issue we lost 80 to 18. We lost the Catholic vote 52 to 47. This despite the fact that Bush started a prememtive war which goes against close to 2 millenia of Catholic doctrine and his constant policies of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. We have permitted the Religious right to define morality as who we sleep with and next to nothing else.

We need a competing moral vision. We need to start using the arguments of faith to justify our positions on education, taxation, health care, and yes gay rights. We have ceeded the powerful language and arguments of faith to the other side instead of bringing forth a religious left. Kucinich was most out of step with our party for his faith, but that is what most need now. We need to fight the idolotry of the Repubicans with a restoration of the true faith that Democrats had during the civil rights and anti war movements. Morality matters and we need to define morality instead of the otherside doing so. It is almost worse than losing to understand that around 17% of the electorate consider voting for Bush as a moral duty.

My prescription might be slightly different.

Faith seems to be a reach for a substantial percentage of DUers (though maybe not Democrats, I don't really know).

But the language of the scriptures and of Jesus can be invoked by Democrats one and all, no matter what their beliefs, even the atheists. The bible, whatever an individual believes about it, contains countless injunctions and sayings that support our agenda. And the words of Jesus--not necessarily the religious Jesus, but Jesus the man--are nearly all relevant to the things we believe in.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Jesus is in actuality the architect of the Liberal agenda. His beliefs are the underpinnings of everything we believe in.

For us not to use the language of biblical injunction and Jesus words to support our position is like a man with a Lexus who prefers to walk.

Y'all are a HOOT! A "competing MORAL MESSAGE?" The *slime that has y'all in a chokehold hasn't ALREADY, at this LATE DATE made its "moral values" clear in technicolor panavision with quadrophonic surroundsound??? Like consuming disproportionate percentages of the world's resources? Like invading countries, brutalizing their civilians to steal MORE resources? Like IGNORING the pressing environmental disasters your overconsumption is exacerbating? Like declaring yourselves UNACCOUNTABLE to the RotW in any court? Like exporting death and destruction to the four corners of the earth in "defense" of your "great nation?" What a bunch of bungholes you battle. So many of your self-righteous RW MORAL leaders are such obvious hypocrites... Long Live Larry Flynt.

The sad thing is this selection should have been 10/90, especially amongst those who profess to live by Christ's teachings. 25/75 was easily in the "fix" bag. :evilgrin: (I am not a statistician nor do I play one on TV). :evilgrin:

Those who claim to be moral while committing murder and mayhem are being exposed. Those who continue defend them now are simply fascists (or braindead) and will cling to the atrocity they've embraced. They believe in authoritarianism and will justify it with all manner of theological, non-sequitorial nonsense. Exposing and discrediting them would go a long way in checking and ROLLING BACK their influence. Engaging them is exhausting and can actually be dangerous to your health. ;-)

Might make more sense to spend your energy, getting RID of those machines after they've been vetted to see how BAD they FUCKED UP counting your votes (that was NASSY-STINKY), taking back your public airwaves, checking into a few churches' tax-exempt status, then pulling back the curtain on:

Christian Reconstructionism

They're ÜBERREICH, powerful and just as MAD AS HATTERS!

Morality, indeed!!! The REAL followers of the Prince of Peace will be at your side without you having to ask.

Yes, we need a moral message. Step #1 is to dump the multicultural/identity politics model and advance a compelling liberal ideology. Step #2 is to find the right voices to advance this agenda. Step #3 is to build up organizations that politicize the agenda and build up the faith. All three steps should be pursued simultaneously as they feed off one another.

we just need someone who is going to put it out there. Kerry should have asked where the compassion is in 'compassionate conservatism' and said that caring for the poor and underprivelged is what real morality is all about etc. etc.

and that is a huge difference. We refuse to express our ideas in a moral framework and that is a killer.

can you give an example of how we can speak about gay rights in a way where it could appeal to those who are religious and tend to vote on morals and values ?

one thing i have a problem with is the acceptance that being anti gay is a value or something moral.

We're all God's children.

in the very near future is to expose the Pat Robertson's, Jerry Falwell's, Jimmy Swaggert's, etc., for what they truly are: money-loving frauds. Why hasn't anyone anywhere asked how Pat Robertson got 8 million to invest in a diamond mine? Seems like a logical question to me. How do they all live in mansions and drive expensive cars. I want some answers to these questions and after we find out they are stealing from their followers, I want the IRS to go after them. Why are these people treated with kid gloves, like it's taboo to question anything about them? I'm sick of their act.

I believe that we can do a lot of good by seperating the fakers like Robertson from "true" Christians. We can do that by showing the more moderate religionists that "by their deeds, they shall be known"

The media seem to be complicit in this, giving them prominent space in op-ed sections and TV interviews. When mainstream America gets a good look at the people who are driving the Republican Party, I suspect they aren't going to like what they see.

I totally agree with that message and I think it would reasonate well.

Jesus and the tax collector, Jesus and the Prostitute. Of all the commandments these two are greatest. Remember the Lord your God, and treat others as you would want to be treated.

Jesus never condoned prostitution, and the Bible clearly speaks against it, but Jesus didn't say kill the prostitutes. Jesus protected them the way ALL CHRISTIANS should.

This is America. More is better!!! :-)

especially when he talked about the moral aspects of health care, but it was a theme that ran throughout his campaign.

In his personal healthcare story, he said it was "immoral" that the other parents in the infant ward couldn't get the treatment that saved his son's life, just because they didn't have the coverage that he had as a lawyer.

I am gonna miss him in the house, and I know hes not liked here on the boards but I really like the guy.

Edit: added "GODDAMN".

The "compelling moral vision" we need to push is not an Us v. Them mentality... they made it that, we can do better than that, imnsho.

Suppose, for example, that rather than engaging them in Us v. Them arguments, you show that :

A wide variety of religions, and even secular logic, teach us that compassion towards the poor, the handicapped, and the less-fortunate is a moral value that we all share. - You do this by quoting not only Biblical scripture, but also the Koran, the Torah, Buddhist scripture, etc. You put these statements side by side, together. Who can argue with that?

Civil rights, by extension of the above, belong to all human beings.

Marriage is not recognized either Biblically or Legally by whether it is consummated or not. Sex is not part of the definition.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

In addition, we support diversity. We explain that by talking about our forests and how a monoculture is a danger to the forest because of its vulnerability to disease that can wipe out the entire forest (dutch elm disease, as an example).

Unlike the repukes, we need to be clear that OUR values are inclusive. EVERYBODY qualifies. No litmus tests.

Let's look to "moral" leaders that everybody can identify with:

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mohandas Gandhi
Dalai Lama
Black Elk

What kinds of things did/do these fellows say about values that pretty much everyone can agree with?

I'm sure all of you can come up with examples, as well as other people we can look to.

It negates the understanding that many who vote GOP have and simply causes them to turn you off.

When confronted with opposition, human beings usually fight or run away. They do NOT change their minds.

To change minds and win hearts you must present a COMPELLING Message.

Something that is sensitive to many GOP'ers sensitivities.

This IS largely a matter of Language and Symbology.

Democrats actively "Value Families" we just don't talk about Family Values.

This is harsh, but we need commercials that show pollution sites, and the photos of babies with birth defects born in that area. And we need to slap the company's profits on top of the image. And show which of Bush's policies contributed to it. Fade to black, white text: "This is not pro-life."

That type of commercial. Heart wrenching storyline, brutal fact tying it to the administration, moral message. Just like that.

We can do it with pollution, we can do it with health care. Real people talking about what happened when they or a spouse couldn't get health care. Then the Bush policy that caused the situation. Then the tag line "This is not pro-life."

A gay person talking into the camera about losing someone in the hospital, not being able to visit them. "I was never trying to threaten your marriage. I just wanted the right to visit Steven before he died." This is not pro-life.

A 9/11 survivor talking about the false EPA reports that sent them back into the area before the air was clean. They talk about having lung damage as a result. A quote from the administration talking about how they wanted to get wall street open. This is not pro-life.

When we are done, they will no longer own that phrase, and it will no longer refer only to fetuses. It will be the new codeword for real policies that help people's lives.

Use their themes to show how we can do the right thing.

Don't always concentrate on the negative, that makes people tune you out.

The constant fighting and bickering between parties is what cost us the election, imho. How long do you want to listen to the squabbling? I know that after just so much of it, I stop listening. I think most people do.

Don't even acknowledge that there is a wedge issue. We don't create those or respond to them. We simply present our message, which implicitly belies their message.

If they try to draw us into baseless argument. Present a positive ad message that destroys their assertions by presenting the truth. Don't say "They lie" outright, that's a negative. I know we often want to call them on their lies, privately we can do so, but don't throw that message out there... let people come to that conclusion themselves.

Present truth... utter honesty, even if it is sometimes painful. Acknowledge that there are moral reasons why a candidate voted the way he or she did.

Don't let there be anything that can be debunked by factcheck.org.

Our issues are the right ones. They poll well among Americans when they're polled in dry, flat terms.

To see us suddenly "get religion" is poppycock. We'll be killed with themes like "deathbed conversion".

Quite simply, to become suddenly religious after losing a national election to highly publicized religious upwelling of the electorate will smell bad to everyone ... including most of us!

It is about the message. But not the "moral" message. We have to take their themes and turn them against them in a way to makes them bad and us good.

Did any of you ever hear Bush run long and loud on hard statements of religiosity? No. Rather it was soft statements. "God Bless America". (Recently) "I pray for Yassir Arafat". That sort of stuff is as far as he goes, really. The rest is code and larger messages.

In my view, the worst thing we can do is hijack their messages. It is pandering and would be seen as such.

No. We need our own messages. As I recently read elsewhere, a theme like America First is something we can run on. Out of that we could develop secondary themes, like Family Choice. Choice of where to get our prescription meds (like Canada). Choice of where we school our kids (like healthy but diverse public schools instead of monolithic private schools) ..... and ..... tada .... choice of what we define as a family.

America First also works for other issues ..... like outsourcing. Why do some companies not put America First? Instead they export or emerging technologies. America First as a theme would stand well for science, too. Stem cell research *will* move forward. Why is George Bush not allowing America to be First in this worthy effort?

Surely religion - or at least an acknowledgment that religion is good for people for whom it is important - fits well in this same theme.

Sparkly posted elsewhere this link:

http://nathanpiazza.blogspot.com/2004/11/applied-memetics-for-disillusioned.html

It makes a great read.

resisting every piece of legislation from the Republicans ON MORAL GROUNDS. Their evil and immoral agenda will provide a motherlode of ammunition. Frame your opposition in terms of showing the immoral consequences of their policies.

Advancing the Social Gospel is the highest form of morality. Stealing from the poor and giving to the rich is the most immoral. Destroying America's economic future and exposing us to greater hatred worldwide is a curse upon generations.

n/t

And for years many inside and outside of the Democratic Party have voiced it, including evangelical Christians, including Catholics.

The problem is that either voters are using "moral values" as a code for being against abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research or they don't know what kind of a man Bush is. The New York Times had an article the other day in which pro-Bush voters termed him "hard-working" and regarded him as possessing "integrity." Really? Someone who bears false witness has "integrity"? On which planet?

Seriously, I think a fair number of people simply don't know what Bush is or what he does, and they buy the ads hook, line and sinker. Most people aren't reading the whole newspaper or hearing anything other than the most cursory news headlines.

Remember that a majority of people surveyed believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

All that is NOT to let us off the hook. We do have to have the message out every night, on every forum, and in every newspaper.

I just find that Americans are their own worst enemies when it comes to moral matters. The people in the Bible Belt have a reputation for caring about morality, but don't think the execution always works. I seem to recall South Carolina STD rates were pretty high.

Also, people are scared of anything that smacks of change. You can frighten people pretty easily by anything that doesn't match the boilerplate right-wing religious message (read: pro-capitalism, pro-paternalism, pro-regressive tax and social policies). No matter how frequently they are screwed over by the system, they are more afraid of changing it than getting help. I watched people vote for the same foolish congressman in South Carolina. Their reason? "Vote for the devil you know."

This could take a while.

I'm still trying to find that out. I don't think most people even know what those values are or can give you a comprehensive list of them. I also don't think most people even could give you a list of values that Bush stands for or his party stands for.

I had someone try to give me such a list. I debunked every one of the examples with examples of my own on how Bush failed on those values. The opposition resorted to changing the subject, and then resorted to an ad hominem (personal) attack.

I think we should just create our own list of values. What does the Democratic Party consider it's values? We should define that list in it's most simplest terms... and then expound on the ideas... and then provide examples that could be used (for ads and pamphlets, etc.)

I think there are many among us who have no idea what a value is. I've noticed that there are people, who when they read about our need to promote values, respond with a "Why should we change our positions on abortion?"

They don't seem to understand that abortion is not a value. The value is a respect for life, and that's what leads some to oppose the right to choose, and others to support it.

Values:

Life
Love
Truth
Compassion
Family
Support and Protection (nurturance)
Liberty
Independence

That 's the only solution I see at this time.