The great Rev. Jim Wallis, one of the founders of FaithfulAmerica.org and Sojourners magazine has written a great op-ed piece in the New York Times about how the Democrats can essentially get their act together. I am pasting it here because the NYTimes website asks you to join and if you aren't already a member (though its free) it might save you some time.


The Message Thing

By JIM WALLIS



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."


Share this story with your friends - go to this article on The New York Times Web site and click the "E-mail This" link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/opinion/04wallis.html

[free registration may be required]

Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Schools

This is fucking scary!!! BUT SADLY PREDICTABLE.

I turn your attention to a superb website called Theocracywatch.org
that is run out of Princeton.

Read it until you are scared into a catatonic state...

Despite Protests, Bush Installs Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to U.N.: "Despite Protests, Bush Installs Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to U.N.

WASHINGTON - President Bush bypassed the Senate and appointed John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Monday over the protests of Senate Democrats who complained he was abusive and would hurt U.S. credibility. 'This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform. So today I've used my constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton as America's ambassador to the United Nations,' Bush said during a White House Roosevelt Room ceremony."

Well, hope y'all had a dandy weekend 'cause guess what? While Congress was on vacation, doing what Congress does best, President Bush used his constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Problems I have with this:

1- He's a dick. Everyone knows it. He hates everything the UN stands for, he has made it obvious to everyone, he uses intimidation to get his way and he's a dick. Period.

2- Democratic Senators complained he would hurt US "credibility." Excuse me, newsflash to the dems, while your heads are stuck up your ass as you try to figure out how you lost control of the country and are now the redheaded stepchild to the Religious Right, our country has already LOST IT'S CREDIBILITY. We have rigged elections, we go to war based on fake evidence of WMD's, we torture prisoners and piss all over the Geneva Convention, we claim to be fighting a "war on terror" when we seem to be inspiring more terror in the world (hello London, my old friend) and we are being bought up and intimidated by China. We have no more credibility. Thanks for noticing, fuckers.

3- W. says the post needed to be filled because we are at war. Are we still at war? I thought he lived out his Top Gun fantasies and declared the mission accomplished? When do we actually know that the war is over? When terror is eradicated? Or when we get all the oil? Or when Jesus is reborn and all of the believers are taken to the Kingdom of Heaven while the rest of the world tries to figure out what to do with themselves without the Christian Right telling us what to do?

When you are finished reading this blurb, read the article on CAFTA I am copying and pasting for literary rubbernecking. It is by a fellow anthropologist and looks like she is just as pissed as me.

Published on Saturday, July 30,2005 by CommonDreams.org
In Their Own Words: The House Debate on CAFTA
by Liza Grandia

At almost midnight Wednesday, July 27, after holding the vote open forty-seven minutes past the official close, the Republican leadership arm-twisted out their 217th "aye" and the controversial Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed into law. Vice President Dick Cheney apparently spent his day in the shadows of House chambers offering pork deals in exchange for votes. It seems fitting that the astronomical sign on the Guatemalan Maya calendar for this ill-fated day was "Ajmaq," meaning a day of "sins" in which "the ancestors see your wrong-doings."

Thanks to C-Span, we citizens were able to witness live the late-night wrongdoings and dirty dealings of Tom DeLay and Company. Their manipulations of the CAFTA vote process made a mockery of our democracy. Contrary to their own Fast-Track legislation which designates 20 hours of debate on trade agreements, the Rules Committee limited debate for CAFTA to a mere two hours. That left exactly sixteen and a half seconds for each representative to voice his or her opinion on the most controversial trade agreement ever to pass before Congress.

The short debates were, indeed, great comedy-who needs reality TV when you can see it all on C-Span? My favorite moments of Republican ignorance, greed, evil, and sheer stupidity were (in that order):

* When Mike Pence from Indiana argued they should support CAFTA to help the "fledgling democracies" of Central America who have "send soldiers to stand with out soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Dear Mr. Pence, let me tell you that the reason why Central Americans are willing to die in Iraq is that they are bone poor and the U.S. offers them citizenship if they are lucky enough to live past their mercenary service.

* When Bill Thomas, a Republican from California, forthrightly admitted he was looking our for Big Business interests through CAFTA, saying: "Let us protect intellectual property rights, let us protect our exporters, let us protect the multinationals, let us protect the big farm corporations."

* Also amusing were the petulant calls for "fair trade" by Republicans bothered that agribusiness from their districts were not able to dump cheap corn (e.g. Rep. Ryan from Wisconsin) and factory-farmed chicken (e.g. Rep. Norwood of Georgia) on Central America. Haven't they a clue about the economic misery most Central Americans live in? "Breaking down barriers to trade" (their favorite mantra) between the richest country in the world and a region where most people make less than two dollars a day is not "fair trade" - it's economic slaughter. It's akin to Paris Hilton waltzing into a homeless shelter, stamping her foot and saying, "It's not fair they get free meals and I don't."

* Most hilarious were the multiple invocations of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, the Sandinistas and even Che Guevara. Reps. Kolbe (Arizona), Everett (Alabama), Burton (Indiana), and Hoekstra (Michigan) reasoned that if these Commies were against CAFTA, then they should vote for it to save the U.S. from the red menace in Central America. Someone should explain to them the Cold War is long since over and take special care to inform Mr. Burton that Che Guevara was long ago assassinated by the CIA and can no longer pose a threat to U.S. trade.

Opposing CAFTA, there were the usual series of protectionist testimonies, for example, Mr. Howard Coble from North Carolina who pulled some tears about his textile-working mother. And there was, of course, Mr. Danny "Candyman" Davis of Illinois who used his precious minute to say, "I do not profess to know everything that CAFTA is going to do, but I do know thatŠ.[in my district[ we make candy. We make a lot of it. We used to be called the Candy Capital of the WorldŠ I was told and I was hoping that CAFTA would help reduce the price of sugar for my candy makers. It will not. Therefore, there is no reason for me to vote for CAFTA and I shall not." Fair enough, it's nice to see they are at least looking out for their constituents' interests over the pressures of corporate lobbyists. And, all that candy will definitely come in handy for Congressional representatives on their fact-finding missions to Central America to give out to the legions of new child beggars created by CAFTA.

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry that our Congressional representatives had such a hasty and mistaken debate on a trade agreement that will have such great consequence for Central America. The evening became more grotesquely surreal when the Republican leadership moved merrily to the next order of business, a bill supporting the goals of "National Marina Day." Meanwhile, on CNN, "Larry King Live" was wasting yet more airtime on the 59-day search for the missing girl in Aruba.

Yet, despite general ignorance of what is really hidden in CAFTA's 2,400 pages, I did find a ray of hope in the very sophisticated speeches of a few representatives who have realized that these trade agreements are "outsourcing agreements" (Congresswoman Maxine Waters from California) and meant only to benefit "profit-hungry corporations." Mr. Dennis Kucinich rightly emphasized that "CAFTA is about institutionalizing cheap labor."

It was really Rep. Sam Farr from California, though, who stole the show with an insight from his Peace Corps days in South America: "The richest country in the world is about to enter into a trade agreement with the poorest countries in the Western hemisphere so that we can open up nontariff issues. They send us goods without tariffs. Yes, we do not grow bananas in the United States or guananaba or platano, but we want to send them our goods so that people who are earning $2 a day can buy Two Buck Chuck."

A decade after the Clinton administration began to spin the myths of "free trade" with NAFTA, we should be encouraged growing understanding among some of our Democratic lawmakers that these trade agreements are written by, of, and for the corporations. That is a welcome opening that must be deepened. In our fury at the Bush administration's underhanded tactics in passing CAFTA, let us not forget to mourn for the suffering the avalanche of CAFTA will wreck upon Central America. Then, let us get busy so that, never again, will a trade agreement vote be close enough to be stolen in broad moonlight.

Liza Grandia is an anthropologist who has lived and worked in Guatemala for more than six years. Her dissertation concerns the impacts of trade and globalization on the agrarian situation of the Q'eqchi' Maya people.