The Message Thing
by Jim Wallis
This op-ed by Jim Wallis is reprinted from the August 4, 2005 edition
of The
New York Times.
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."
This article appeared originally on
www.sojo.net
Source: Sojourners (c) 2005. 1-800-714-7474.
