SECTION I: LESSONS FROM THE PAST
The Republican Party has out-foxed, out-maneuvered, and out-campaigned the Democratic Party over the last several decades, leading to dominance on the Hill. What are their strategies, why have they been so effective, and most importantly, how does this inform a winning formula for the Democratic Party?
Lesson #1: Emotions Drive Campaigns—Not Facts, Logic, or Even Ideals
Effective campaigns engage voters on an emotional level, something the Republican Party has mastered and Democrats must learn.
In the early 2000’s, advances in brain neuroscience brought greater understanding to the intricacies of political persuasion and effective campaigning. As psychologist Drew Westen elaborates in his book, The Political Brain, emotions are the high-octane fuel that drives successful campaigns—not facts, logic, policies or lofty ideals bereft of a moving “why should we care” factor.
In order to survive, the human brain is wired to prioritize information that affects us on a visceral level, primed to tune in to emotional information registering danger or desire, which is then processed through higher centers of the brain, bringing reason to bear. These discoveries have shown that human beings are not rationally driven, but driven by emotion and only tempered by reason—in the best of circumstances.
Common sense tells us as much, if we think about it. We’re drawn to eaves drop on emotional interactions over mundane conversations next to us in the coffee shop. We remember the highs and lows in our lives much more than neutral events. Feeling—the pursuit of pleasure/comfort and the avoidance of displeasure/discomfort, pain and suffering—is what motivates action. And the things and people that mean the most to us, mean the most because of the feelings attached.
Emotional content is king, hands down. It commands our attention, sears information and experiences into memory, invokes action and reaction, and creates personal meaning on the deepest of levels. As Abraham Lincoln intuitively understood about gaining constituent support: “In order to win a man to your cause, you must first reach his heart, the great high road to his reason.”
The failure to understand this basic principle has been a major downfall of the Democratic Party. The party as a whole has approached campaigning in an intellectual fashion, armed with a laundry list of do-good policies supported by data, charts and rational objections about Republicans, certain that anyone who understands the facts will vote for their candidate. Yet as Westen points out, any political campaign that has “getting the vote” as its aim is akin to putting the cart before the horse—it’s not going to get you very far.
He argues that the first aim of any political campaign must be engaging the electorate emotionally, engendering interest by invoking feelings such as enthusiasm, desire, hope, and even fear, anger, or outrage. And when a campaign can rouse passionate positive feelings for their candidate/cause and negative feelings against the opposition, the stage is set for victory. This is done through moving narratives (not “truth,” dry facts or righteous arguments) something Republicans have mastered with great artistry.
This was the genius of G.W. Bush’s chief strategist, “Turd Blossom” Karl Rove. Turds became blossoms by his artful exploitation of voters’ emotions. He was gifted at manipulating reality with carefully contrived stories that at once turned Bush’s weaknesses into strengths and his opponent’s strengths into weaknesses, creating affinity for Bush and the Republican Party’s objectives along with dislike or even animosity towards his opponents and the Democratic Party as a whole.
How did Rove accomplish this? Through provocative stories laden with moral undertones that defined character and spoke to values. Not only did Rove understand the importance of evoking positive and negative emotions in political persuasion; he also knew how to achieve the greatest effect by tapping into the juiciest sources of emotion—those related to dearly held beliefs that form the essence of one’s identity—one’s values. This brings us to the second lesson…
Lesson #2: Successful Campaigns Speak to Voters’ Values
In order to passionately engage voters, candidates must speak to voters’ values (which is different than speaking about values, a distinction Democrats also must learn), creating emotional resonance, identification with, and affinity for the candidate and their cause.
Beyond the tricks of gerrymandering, the success of Republican political campaigns can largely be attributed to their ability to appeal to voters’ values, enabling them to scoop up middle-of-the-road voters by the truckload. Values are the pipeline, a direct channel into hearts and minds, mining that which is most meaningful and significant. When a candidate speaks on the level of values, they can generate emotional resonance in voters, which is key for building support. It conveys a compatible worldview based on our most cherished beliefs (what’s important to us and why), which is intimately related to our identity.
When others feel the way we feel, and see life the way we see life, we identify with them and forge an immediate sense of affiliation and affinity. And the opposite is true. Dislike, distrust and hostility readily take hold when differences in dearly held values are exposed. Here lies the reason politics is such a volatile topic. It’s also why politics bring about hostile partisan tribalism–an us/not us frame creating a defensive or even aggressive posture to protect from outside “enemy” forces. Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way, but it takes wisdom, grace and concerted effort (something we have lost as a culture) to rise above this primal human tendency.
Base instincts aside, it makes sense that people will vote for candidates with whom they resonate. After all, voters elect representatives, people who most closely represent their cares, concerns and most importantly, their values, which are the core of a person’s identity. In order for voters to be able to identify with a candidate, that candidate has to first know their values—what drives them and why—and then communicate them loudly and proudly. Otherwise, candidates are toast.
Many political analysts concluded that Senator John Kerry’s candidacy was crippled from the outset due to his failure to resonate with voters on the level of values. Unlike Bush who came off as a “bro” quick with a quip, Kerry was stiff and stilted, more comfortable in his head than playfully relating to constituents. His less than magnetic charisma coupled with his highly intellectual approach was a handicap from the start. But when Karl Rove and Co. got through with him, he was burnt toast.
Through the stories they crafted, Republican strategists emphasized Kerry’s un-relatability while making Bush the buddy in a bar. Capitalizing on a candid photo of Kerry kite surfing off the island of Nantucket, they painted him as a highbrow, East Coast elite who engaged in privileged leisure activities, completely outside the realm anybody in Middle America could relate to. Meanwhile, Bush was portrayed as a cowboy on the ranch with whom you could shoot the bull over a beer. Because of this slick communication of implied shared values, the average American could identify with Bush as “one of them,” while Kerry was dead in the tony waters of Nantucket.
Of course, none of this should matter when choosing the President of the United States; but again, voters are not driven by logic. Rove knew how to burrow into these irrational motivations, miking them for all their worth. By establishing Bush as likeable and relatable, and Kerry as unlikeable and not relatable from the outset, Rove then took advantage of the psychological phenomenon known as “cognitive dissonance.”
Cognitive dissonance is the experience of psychic stress when facts and information clash with established perceptions and beliefs. In order to avoid this discomfort, people subconsciously look for reasons to support their previously held notions. So, if voters “like you” they look for reasons to like you. If they don’t like you, they look for reasons not to like you. Rove made sure that heartland America didn’t like/resonate with Kerry from the get-go, and the cards were stacked in Bush’s favor.
Next came the onslaught of television ads challenging Kerry’s patriotism. Kerry, a bona fide war hero, was attacked on manufactured moral grounds discrediting his honorable war record as a swift boat pilot in Vietnam. The ads suggested he was unfit for command because of his later involvement with the anti-war group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, insinuating he was unpatriotic and untrustworthy, lacking integrity of character.
Bush, on the other hand, was positioned as a hardcore patriot and defender of our nation, (highly valued, as the fear from 9/11 lingered.) The great irony to all of this is that Bush was not only a privileged Ivy-leaguer too, but a shameless draft-dodger whose family connections allowed him to hide at home in the National Guard, far removed from the courage of combat. This Rovian sleight-of-hand (deflecting a candidate’s weakness by projecting it onto the opponent, also Trump’s forte) knocked Kerry back on his heels into a defensive fighting position, never to recover. (When there’s no resonance between candidate and constituency on the level of values, bullets using moral gunpowder are almost always lethal.)
Hillary Clinton made the very same mistakes as Kerry—leading with her cerebral cortex, offering good reason after good reason why she was the candidate to elect, while failing to connect with voters on the level of values (beyond old guard feminists already in her camp.) Furthermore, from years in the crosshairs of partisan politics, she began her candidacy with a high unlikablity/distrust factor among many, with people looking for ways to reinforce their pre-established feelings and beliefs.
They didn’t have to look very hard. Her moral authority was easily challenged—Benghazi, email servers, big donor dealings, and a cozy relationship with Wall St. complete with extravagant speaking fees, etc. You name it; she was fighting it, caught in the trap of answering to damaging stories crafted by the opposition, instead of proclaiming her mission and putting forth her own narrative. In politics as in sports, only playing defense never scores you points or wins you games and elections…another point Democrats have yet to learn.
Now imagine if Hillary, or any candidate, came out of the gate, speaking from a place of moral authority, expressing what she believes and why she does what she does. When “vote for me” instead becomes “vote for the cause,” the power of purpose takes over. When communicating the “why” is so principled, the tone automatically shifts from opposition to mission, from defense to offense. When the fight is based on and for a set of values, there is no repudiation. End of debate. You are either with the candidate, or you’re not.
The key here is to communicate your values in a way that emotionally impacts those you are trying to persuade—to reach a deeper level than facts, charts or policy proposals ever could. From here comes the fire of inspiration—to care, to vote, to fight for what’s right.
Trump understood all of this, and shrewdly played to it well. He claimed to be on a mission to “end politics as usual” by “draining the swamp” in D.C. He would then “make America great again” by bringing economic justice and security to working class Americans. Vote for Trump, and the American Dream would be within every American’s reach.
Through his clearly defined, unyielding purpose focused on his supporter’s greatest grievances, and anchored in the values they held most dear, he created an unbreakable bond with them. In fact, he was so confident in the strength of this bond, he infamously proclaimed: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
Hyperbole aside, Trump was right. He knew he could do no wrong in his followers’ eyes because he connected with them on the deepest level—on the level of their values—and promised to solve their most pressing problems. They identified with him and his message, and were going to vote for him, no matter what. Despicable behavior aside, Trump was their man.
And lastly, even in spite of his inconceivable number of moral and ethical transgressions on the campaign trail, he was rarely in a defensive position for more than a New York minute, switching to offense as quick as a snake striking its threat. He was so focused on his professed mission to change Washington that he spent no time trying to defend his worthiness of the office of the presidency—moral, practical or otherwise.
Bonding with voters on the level of values was the power of Bernie Sanders’ campaign as well. Bernie spoke to the heart from the heart. His whole being was in the game; his conviction was visceral—you could feel it. And his clear, resolute purpose to change a “rigged” political/economic system resonated with a large number of Americans, even millennials in spite of a generation gap gigabytes wide.
Bernie was trustworthy and believable, through and through. His message was genuine, not crafted from focus groups or pollsters strategically trying to reach this demographic or that. He was a man on a mission, as unpolished and authentic as they come. He was all Bernie, and he was all in. In fact, he cared about the cause of his campaign with such gusto, he made you feel and care right along with him.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, this is the kind of candidate America needs—someone who can connect emotionally with voters because they are on a moral mission to “do right” by the America people—politics and money be damned. It is this very quality that has also made Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Beto O’Rourke so appealing as candidates. Their authenticity is palpable in the thick of calcified incumbents whose stale, uninspired rhetoric and contrived messages don’t ring true.
The best politicians attract us to them by who they are, what they believe, and the energy they radiate. They show the courage of their convictions to “fight for what’s right,” no matter what. They don’t tiptoe through the landmines of a campaign, hoping to get to the other side a winner. Rather, they are an impassioned force for justice—a force you feel compelled to support any way you can.
Furthermore, candidates with an authentic mission don’t simply throw the term “values” around, hoping the phrase will work magic, as Democrats often attempt. Instead, such candidates live, breathe, and fight for their values with all their might. In fact, their values become their might, directing and driving their campaign with unstoppable conviction. This is the might the Democratic Party needs to find, a might described and a mission proposed in the following pages.
Lesson #3: Moral Narratives Are Essential to Winning Elections
Every winning campaign needs to have a compelling “why”—an irresistibly persuasive story that creates appeal for the candidate/party/cause that at once strengthens their position while weakening the opposition.
Human beings have a thirst for narrative. We’re a storytelling and story-creating species, neurologically designed to make sense of facts and experiences through story. From prehistoric tales told on cave walls to myths passed down through the ages, from bedtime fables read to children to yarns spun over dining tables, stories feed our souls, and are the most powerful tool of communication we have.
Stories help us understand the world, weaving facts, concepts and feelings into a meaningful whole. And stories bond us to each other by creating mutual understanding. As thoughts, feelings and experiences are revealed through story, we can feel the experience and humanity of another. This is precisely why parables are used in holy books. They engage, influence, and inspire benevolence by evoking emotion, in this case empathy for others, which is much more effective than the injunction: “That’s bad. Don’t sin. Be virtuous.”
Likewise, the Democratic Party needs a moral narrative to engage, influence and inspire voters to join the fight for a better America. Their current attempts at messaging involve bland policy points and superficial slogans (bland and superficial because they are not made emotionally vivid through narrative) followed by lifeless facts and some form of the injunction: Republicans are wrong/corrupt/at fault/ineffective—vote Democrat. Without a compelling “why” embedded in a meaningful story that moves voters to care, you’re just throwing mud at a wall, hoping it will stick.
People sometimes think of the use of narratives or “messaging” cynically, as a tool employed to manipulate voters. It certainly has been used this way, as I will show in great detail. However, if the story you tell voters is truthful, it’s something else entirely. It’s relating your mission—the “why” that drives you—honestly and powerfully, and is absolutely indispensible to a persuasive campaign.
This type of persuasion is campaigning with heart, not propaganda—big difference. In fact, if you don’t have a heartfelt mission that you can effectively convey through narrative, you have no business running for office because the odds of engaging voters, who are not already with you, are against you.
Democrats have yet to figure this out. Resisting Trump with all their vigor, is fine and just, but it’s not good enough. As Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post noted: “The real fight is not against Trump; it is for America.” This is the story that must be persuasively told. What, exactly, is the Democratic Party fighting for?
Knowing what you are fighting for, not just against, is true political leadership—just as true leadership of any kind is visionary not reactionary, inspiring not demonizing, and unifying not polarizing.
The Democratic Party has certainly been showing plenty of emotion lately, but this is not campaigning with heart or leadership. Expressing fire and fury over this horrifying incident and that, this sorry fact and that, this crude comment and that, doesn’t persuade. Nor does vigorously complaining about Republican policies and tactics.
Even the way Democrats talk about American values isn’t persuasive. Declaring that American values are being trampled upon and they need to be fought for is a start, but doesn’t go far enough. These are merely impassioned statements. You can’t simply inject your feelings, beliefs and attitudes into others via indignation. It’s like a parent lecturing a teen—you might as well be talking to a tree.
Aggrieved speeches and emotional rants are only reaching the people who already see what you see, and feel the way you feel. Granted, you may be stirring folks up, but you are preaching to the choir and annoying the hell out of everyone else—those who have not already tuned you out, anyway. This is not persuasion.
Telling a story that evokes emotion is persuasion. And in order to evoke emotion, stories need all the elements of a good narrative—plot (or in the case of political campaigns, the argument to be made), characters (protagonists and antagonists), conflict, and resolution (or solutions proposed.)
Storytelling persuades by involving the listener on a journey of understanding. Through narrative, you’re showing, relating, and sharing rather than telling, railing, and declaring. Just as parables allow people to arrive at their own conclusions of right and wrong by generating a feeling for the lesson being conveyed, moral narratives in political persuasion allow voters to meaningfully understand the heart of the problem, the conflicts involved, and the challenges ahead, so they can arrive at their own feelings, their own beliefs, their own hope, their own outrage—from the inside out.
Stories are the best way to communicate anything, especially controversial or difficult topics because stories penetrate defenses by engaging the heart not just the mind. Stories also inspire by bringing lessons and messages to life. And via empathic connection, stories create a feeling for “what’s right,” why it matters, and ultimately who the audience feels aligned with (i.e. wants to vote for). For all of these reasons, narrative is absolutely crucial to effective campaigning.
Also, having a moral narrative is essential for a winning campaign because it puts the one telling the story in the driver’s seat. By crafting an impassioned case for your party, your candidate, and your cause while simultaneously creating fierce objection to the opposition, you are able to take control of the direction of a campaign. If you aren’t the one telling the narrative, you’ll be defensively responding to stories coming from the other side, hoping upon hope you’re not “swift-boated” (now an actual verb) like John Kerry was in 2004.
For the last four decades, Democrats have been doing just this—running defense with no moral narrative of their own, only answering to the antagonistic role in which they’ve been cast. Let’s take a look at the ingenious ways Republicans have put this strategy to use, telling a coherent (although misrepresentative) moral narrative that effectively captured the hearts and minds of American voters, and pitted many in Middle America against the Democratic Party.
Using the very same marketing techniques as Madison Avenue, Republican strategists tap into a desire or concoct a need through emotional channels (i.e., longing, insecurity, anger, fear, etc.), and then claim to meet that need. This becomes the party’s story, brand, identity…and propaganda. Next, they sell their brand with slogans and symbols that associate their “product” (party/candidate/platform) with the essence of their story in as few words as possible.
The Moral Majority. Pro-family. Pro-life. Compassionate Conservatives. Family values. Any way these sound bites are sliced, the Republican Party has cornered the market on American’s most precious concerns (religion, children, family) and in doing so, built a brand identity that’s been hard to beat—a party that is moral, benevolent, and has the best interests of America and your children, at heart.
In particular, “family values” has been the most compelling and effective slogan, particularly instrumental from the Reagan era through the G.W. Bush years. This emotionally laden phrase was embedded in a larger culture war narrative that painted Republicans as moral heroes out to protect our children and country from amoral Democrats.
According to this story, Democrats and their “liberal agenda” (i.e., women’s rights, gay rights, the teaching of evolution in schools, science-based sex education, stem cell research, etc.) were trampling on American values (deceptively equated with fundamentalist biblical values), damaging traditional families, and if not stopped, would destroy our country and Western civilization itself. If you care about your children, their moral upbringing, and the culture they’re immersed in, vote Republican.
During the 2004 election, gay marriage was the highly charged wedge issue that drove this point home, dispatching “values voters” to the polls in droves. From rural gun-owners to suburban soccer moms, parents of our nation’s children were joined together by that which they most valued—the welfare of their children and the moral tone of the culture in which they were raising them. It was a brilliant divide-and-conquer war strategy designed to set the “secular, amoral, anti-American” elites on the coasts against the wholesome values of America’s heartland.
As Thomas Frank explains in his book, What’s the Matter With Kansas, hot button cultural issues have cleverly influenced the average American to vote Republican even though it’s against their economic interests. The culture war narrative and the contentious social issues associated with it became an ingenious diversion from other political realities, accounting for the self-defeating shift to the Republican Party by middle and working class Americans, once soundly Democratic. By claiming they would protect America from enemy liberal forces, Republicans successfully duped Americans into voting for them, currying favor for a party disloyal to their economic needs.
Ironically, even the ethically unhinged Donald J. Trump employed an effective moral narrative in his upset victory over Hillary Clinton. Trump, like the culture warriors before him, honed in on an “us vs. them” tactic, shrewdly drawing divisions among Americans. However, he came up with a new divide-and-conquer strategy that managed to passionately engage and rally supporters against contrived enemies.
Unlike the culture warriors before him, he cleverly avoided the usual wedge issues (anything involving religion, and family values), which would only highlight his own massive moral shortcomings. Instead, he capitalized on his brand as an (supposedly) astute, no-nonsense businessman. He then zeroed in on one of the greatest fears facing many Americans today—economic insecurity and the loss of the American Dream—and made righting this wrong the mission of his campaign.
He positioned himself as a populist superhero that was going to “make America great again” by fighting the slew of villains that he had written into his script—crooked and inept politicians, bloodsucking immigrants and dangerous refugees—all out to harm American citizens and their interests.
And like G.W. Bush before him, he fanned fears while putting forth an authoritarian moral tone of righteous aggression against any and all that dared to harm America. This time, however, it was between those struggling economically and the rest, including Democrats and their politically correct brand of “identity politics” construed as concern for everyone except white Middle America and their economic troubles.
It’s critical to note that it is not any given slogan, in and of itself, that brings potency to a campaign, but the moral story to which it’s attached. Hillary had her own “stronger together” slogan, but it went nowhere because it meant nothing without a greater narrative to ground it. Let’s take a look at the Democratic Party’s anemic effort to appeal to voters’ values as put forth in their official 2016 platform:
“Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls. It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Even though this slogan is absolutely correct—we are stronger together—it was a feeble and futile attempt to connect with voters on the level of values. A list of value statements doesn’t cut it. With no storyline, “stronger together” was merely empty platitude that didn’t do what it needed to do—captivate voters emotionally while reversing the divisive effects of culture war narratives coming from the right.
Helping people become stronger together is, in fact, the hallmark of a great leader and the tactical task of an effective campaign, but simply stating this fact inspires nothing and unites no one.
How does a party inspire a movement that unites citizens to become stronger together? Through a narrative that emotionally involves voters by communicating:
1) The core problem we face as a nation
2) The conflict/competing motives at hand, complete with protagonists and antagonists
3) How these circumstances impact voters as American citizens/ why they should care
4) What the candidate/party is going to do to solve the problem and right the wrongs
But alas, the Clinton campaign had no meaningful narrative—a clearly articulated moral purpose that attracted voters with why they should vote for Hillary—as if “not Trump” was good enough. Obviously, it wasn’t.
Hillary didn’t inspire voters to fight right alongside her because it wasn’t clear what she was fighting for. Bernie, on the other hand, was on the right track by fighting with moral conviction for the economic survival of Middle America and against what he called the “billionaire class” –-the 1% who wield an inordinate amount of power in D.C. and reap unfair advantages from our broken political and economic systems. His campaign had a strong start on a story with populist appeal that spoke to the needs of Americans while attacking Republican ideology and policies.
What was missing for Sanders, however, was a coherent moral narrative that:
1) Discredits the Republican story of moral and patriotic superiority, while telling the story that puts the Democratic Party squarely in this roll.
2) Incorporates American values and a frame of capitalism (which is part and parcel of America, like it or not) acknowledging its good, while condemning the dysfunctional aspects that must be managed politically.
3) Has the backing of a party embracing and embodying the narrative wholeheartedly, making the fight for American values and the American people their moral mission.
When this is done, you have a winning formula.
The Democratic Party is at a crossroads with tension between the progressive left, who want dramatic change from the ground up, and centrists who want to massage the system and coax incremental change that many believe is more-of-the-same, non-change. But until the party becomes unified, they will be in a hopelessly weakened position. They have to fight together, not against each other, and for something not just against Republicans. As it stands now, it seems Democrats only purpose is to win elections, while vaguely claiming they are fighting for the people.
To state the obvious (which seems to have eluded Democrats), the party needs to come together around a common cause and a clear understanding of what animates their cause. If the Democratic Party can unite around shared values, authentically claim their mission, and tell the story of the real fight we face as a nation, they could harness the unrest rampant in America today and generate a passionate rallying cry that would appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.
Yet, nearly four years after Clinton’s loss, party leaders had still shown little understanding of what’s vital for a winning campaign. In August, the Democratic Party began “road-testing” their 2018 midterm campaign message. During an interview on the subject (The Dworkin Report, 8/12/2018), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked: “What is the Democratic Party for?” She proudly declared, “We’re for the people.” When pressed to explain what that meant, she launched into policies that would give Americans a better deal, peppered with clever sound bites about cleaning up corruption in the GOP—all sounding very inauthentic and tactical. Great governing, horrible campaigning.
Once again, the Democratic Party presented another bland, superficial slogan with no moral narrative to breathe fire into it. In other words, what in the hell does “For the People” actually mean, and why should anyone care?
Without the horsepower of a compelling moral story conveying their mission, driving a campaign, and inspiring voters with a meaningful, purpose-driven cause, Democrats are hopelessly handicapped in their political appeal and influence. This handicap was recognized well over a decade ago by some of the most prominent politicos of the time who declared the need for a moral narrative, unfortunately to no avail…
“Progressives have a strong moral belief system—we need to find better ways to articulate that.”– Robert Greenwald, progressive activist and award-winning documentary filmmaker
“Democrats are desperately weak on message. The values are there but they haven’t been developed into a coherent story and strong initiatives…” “…We have to get off defense and move to offense.” -Wes Boyd, co-founder of Moveon.org
“They (Democrats) have to find a language that assures voters, religious or not, that their political positions are driven by deeply held moral values. There are moral absolutes and progressives should not be afraid of proclaiming them.”– Paul Waldman, political columnist and author of Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success
“We need to start talking about our own moral vision for America…”– George Lakoff, cognitive scientist/political strategist and author of Don’t Think of An Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate
“You don’t win on their turf (their narrative); you win by redefining it…”– Naomi Klein, best-selling author and progressive activist
“The political failures of the progressive movement are not the result of the lack of moral values, as the Republicans are so fond of claiming. They reflect instead the gap between our values and the way we speak about them…”– Lakshmi Chaudry, political reporter, co-author/editor Start Making Sense: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate
There was urgency then, and yet the need for a moral narrative is even more urgent now. Beyond remedying a handicap, today a moral narrative has the potential to:
1) Re-anchor our nation in its founding principles
2) Mobilize Americans who are in crisis and ready to fight “the good fight” for America and her values, creating an unstoppable progressive populist movement (vs. the current authoritarian populist movement)
3) Unify a fractured party with a collective mission fueled by shared values and mutual conviction, creating powerful synergy
Also, there’s no better time for the Democratic Party to stake claim to moral principles and American values, while exposing the Republican Party’s bogus story of moral and patriotic superiority.
We have in our midst a morally challenged, ethically compromised, constitutionally ignorant, diplomatically inept, incompetent president in the White House with Republican leaders showing no moral backbone in the face of it all. The proverbial iron is hotter than ever to strike with a moral narrative that sears a real understanding of what patriotism and moral values in American politics and civic life ought to look like—in word, in manner, and in deed.
It’s clear that Americans are outraged by the breakdown of moral values in our political system. However, they need a frame to make sense of it, a way to resolve it, and a party to go to bat for them. Democratic Party, that’s you. It’s time to show the pluck and passion and purpose that America deserves from its leaders, using the force of goodwill to get our country on track.
The question becomes: Does the Democratic Party have the will, the spirit, and the integrity needed to turn our country around? If so, they will be American heroes. If not, they will be committing political suicide. Why? Because Americans are done with politics as usual. Case in point: the Kamikaze-like rebellion against the status quo with the jaw-dropping election of Donald J. Trump. Enough said.
