Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Political Vision and Faith Communities


Optimistic, Democrats Debate the Party's Vision - New York Times: "With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections and the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation."


Ever since the 2004 election we've been reading quotes like this one in today's New York Times. It was abundantly clear by then that a central reason we had to endure another four years of the Bush administration was because the alternative party had no clear sense of direction. They were deficient in the "vision thing."


That was particularly true for "people of faith" who were looking for a voice that didn't sound like that of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. There was a hunger in the electorate for someone who understood that the faith community is far more diverse than the Religious Right would have us believe. All that was needed was a candidate who demonstrated a comfort with the language and perspectives of religious folk. Unfortunately, whenever John Kerry tried to address those issues it felt like he was scratching his fingernails across a blackboard.


Progressive people of faith want candidates who demonstrate an awareness of moral/ethical issues without suggesting that they are divinely commissioned to govern. They believe that a "culture of life" isn't limited to abortion or stem cells, but includes capital punishment and deadly wars, not to mention a "quality of life" for those who live in poverty. They believe that a budget is a moral document that speaks to the deepest values of the nation.


Some Democrats belatedly show an awareness of the problem and we now see efforts underway to create an identity and vision for the party. I suppose that's a good thing, but it's disconcerting to have politicos trying to whomp up a vision. That should be written into the bone marrow of those who would aspire to lead us. It's not the vision that should be debated, it's the implementation of that vision in policies and platforms that need vigorous discussion. Instead, we have a national political party in search of its own identity. How sad!


Faith and politics make awkward but needed bedfellows. Let us hope that the search for vision will be sufficiently matured by 2008 that the country will be able to dialogue meaningfully about the complex foundational issues we face. Those await clarity and passion from candidates who finally get it. We deserve at least that much.


Technorati tags:

3 comments:

  1. I agree. I recently read a book called "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff, who seems to have a handle on the problem. He says the Republicans know their values and frame the debate with words.For instance, they call the estate tax a "death tax", which has negative connotations.

    They have learned to frame their issues in the proper language to achieve their goals. Democrats have not.

    He says Richard Nixon learned the hard way not to frame in a negative way when he said, "I am not a crook". From that time on, everyone thought of him as a crook.

    The basic principal of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side is "do not use their language". Their language picks out a frame and it won't be the one you want.

    Another example he gives: The moment George W. Bush entered the White House, the phrase "tax relief" started coming out of the White House. It still is. It was used a number of times in this year's State of the Union address, and is showing up more and more in pre-election speeches, four years later.

    Think of the framing for "relief". For there to be relief, then there must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore, a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those people look like villians for trying to prevent relief. When the word, "tax" is added, the result is a metaphor. Taxation is an affliction. The language evokes the frame the White House is needing. Soon even the New York Times is using that term. Every TV station and network and newspaper and radio station is using it because it is the president's "tax relief" plan. Even the Democrats are using the term and shooting themselves in the foot.

    Also think of a few more words they have framed just right. "Rogue states" for example. There are "friendly nations" and "rogue states". The "coalition of the willing" is another, indicating that anyone who doesn't want to go to war is not a part of the "willing".

    The president also uses the word "evil" a lot. Who wouldn't be against "evil"?

    Everyone wanting a change in this nation's politics should read this book...especially the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comment, Margie. I've read Lakoff's book and agree that the framing issue is key for the Democrats in this election cycle. It's just a shame that it has taken them so long to see it. Hopefully, progressives will be able to win back some of the rhetorical ground that has been lost.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great points Grant and Margie....small quibble...ok...big quibble..especially (as always!) with the gentlelady from Coffeyville. I don't think Lakoff's analysis is really going to do much to help take Democratic bacon out of the fire, for the simple reason that semantics is not the root cause of our political polarization.

    I've waded through a lot of data, most of which suggests that whether we vote Republican or Democratic, we Americans are not divided by the issues, we're divided by the priority we assign to action on issues.

    Highly suggestive is the joint insurance industry/Stonebridge University polling data that showed that nowadays 53 percent of Americans who vote Republican support universal healthcare and the tax increases that would result. Conventional wisdom would suggest that universal healthcare is a Democratic issue and that these voters have made an irrational choice at the voting booth. Not so. These universal healthcare supporting Republican voters are pro-life as well, and assign higher priority to their pro-life position than to the implementation of universal healthcare.

    And close to 40 percent of Americans that vote Democratic are pro-life. Why don't they vote Republican then? Higher priority to other issues such as social and economic justice, opposition to war etc.

    It would seem that there is a vast vacuum in the middle of USAmerican politics, that could be filled by a party that is both sufficiently pro-life as well as center to center-left economically.

    Checker

    ReplyDelete