In my post yesterday, Unarticulated Democratic Morality, I explained that while I feel Democrats make some fine policies, they don’t always take the time to explain and motivate the morality underlying those policies. This leaves those issues open to being defined by the Republicans’ narrative rather than their own. Obviously, this needs to change. But how?

At first blush it would seem a tough challenge for the Democrats to come to agreement on a message. With a “big tent,” and without a single common religion dictating the One True Way, it might seem like a Moral Tower of Babel is the inevitable result. I don’t think it is.

Don’t Be Afraid of the Details

The absolutist message always sounds simple, but usually because it pretends that one solution will work in all cases. Diving into the details will reveal the flaws in that assumption. If pressed, the absolutists will have to agree that there is not really One True Way in the sense of a “one size fits all” solution to how we each need to manage the most personal aspects of our lives.

The reason there are so many sects, after all, is that there is really substantive disagreement on the details. This suggests that one obvious way for Democrats to proceed in discussions about religious matters is not to shy away from discussion but to press for those details and to discuss the implications of those details.

For example, when prayer in school is suggested, don’t dodge the issue. Ask instead “What prayer, specifically?” When more religious textbooks are suggested, ask whose religion and what specific message. The individual details of prayers have divided whole churches in the past. Because it makes nice spin, the Republicans might have people believe that the reason the Democrats want to separate Church from State is to allow atheists to take over. But, in fact, a key reason we have freedom of religion is not just to allow people to be atheists, but to allow Catholics and Protestants the ability to coexist in our society.

Republicans often allude to Judeo-Christian issues in the hope of sounding inclusive. In such a case, speaking about religion in a generic way, the difficulties entailed by an absolutist approach may be temporarily blurred. But if one asks for details about how a specific policy might play out, the problems will readily become more apparent. It’s in the details that one sees the good and honorable reasons for a separation of church and state.

Take a Stand on Greed and Corruption

Pressing others for details is a kind of defensive act. Beyond that there is a need to go on the offensive. I think there is a hunger in the population for Democrats to proactively articulate their morality.

I might start with simple things like why there is no prosecution of bankers who have suckered millions into losing their homes.

Or how about let’s press for some serious investigation of the criminal negligence that brought us the BP oil spill.

Some might say that although egregious these last two items are not actually illegal, and we can’t make bills of attainder to go after them. Sure. But we can at least be diligent about assuring ourselves through a formal investigation that no crimes were already committed under existing law. This isn’t a petty, personal thing. Harm was done of the most severe kind and it’s entirely appropriate for there to be an investigation. Indeed, the absence of an investigation is very conspicuous and maddening to ordinary people who know that they personally would be investigated for crimes with much less impact. It offends any rational sense of morality to not go after these people.

Democratic Senators, Representatives, and even the President are all members of a majority party that would have people think it moral—even if they might shy from the term “Moral Majority.” They should stand up proudly to say that we as a nation will make a regular practice to vigorously pursue those who have preyed upon others, and to create legislation that will make criminals of anyone who does these things again.

Beginning discussion of these issues are small things that can be done immediately, now, before the election. If the Republicans want to block such efforts, let them try, but make sure that their obstruction is made a very public part of the record. They must be forced into the position of having to admit, “no, we can’t go after such people ever—not now, and not in the future.”

Fight for the Little Guy

There are a lot more little guys than rich people or big companies in the US, and yet the common ordinary citizen is being rolled over by Big Business these days. On health care, consumer credit, jobs, minimum wage, medicine, the food supply, and a lot more issues, hard-working middle-class Americans are getting a raw deal. Many are struggling even to retain any vestige of their former middle-class status. The future is not looking bright.

And yet these people, who plainly have a voting majority, are struggling to find a voice in Washington. Be their voice. Politics and society should be about the general welfare, not just about the rich. And anyway, the rich can take care of themselves. Any time they try to complain that the poor have got a better deal, offer them a chance to trade places and see if they jump at it.

The rich have a lot of well-practiced conversational routines for making themselves feel good about their own lot and for making the poor feel guilty about theirs. But in the end, words don’t create truth. Truth, not truthiness, must win out. And the truth is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is vanishing. That needs to change, and saying it needs to change is not “asking for a handout” or “trying to get something for nothing.”

In spite of the rhetoric of Republican spinmeisters about the matter, the poor and middle class really contribute a lot and, comparatively, do not ask for a lot. They fight our wars, they clean our toilets, and they often work more than one job at really marginal wages to make ends meet. If they can’t get a job, it’s not because they are too comfortable on unemployment, nor is it because they’re just being stubborn in demanding a living wage rather than lowering the minimum wage.

Champion these people and you’ll find the votes you need to be elected.

Stand Fast on Human Rights

On some issues, there isn’t going to be a debate to be had. We either believe in rights or we do not. A right that can be revoked by government choice is not a right. Once the matter is open for discussion, we’re not talking about rights, we’re acknowledging the possibility that there might not be a right. Likewise, saying “this can wait” does not say “this is a human rights matter.”

Violations of human rights come in various forms that are not all related to one another.

Torture, for example, falls into this category. The Democrats need take a position on torture and have the courage of their convictions. If we don’t believe in torture, let’s not do it. Period. It’s easy to be tempted by specific situations, but that’s the reason we make it an official policy. If the government is going to make the case that we can’t afford to take this position, let them make it openly. At minimum, there must be transparency and review. Right now we don’t seem to have that, but Democracy cannot function without it.

The right of gays to serve in the military is important not just as an individual right but because the public has a right to see its money well spent. We’ve paid to train many dedicated people, only to later see them kicked out just because we somehow found out who they would like to sleep with. Sometimes in so doing we even lose skills we cannot replace. Gays serve honorably and successfully in the militaries of many of our allies. We’re up to the challenge. On his first day in office, Obama should have signed an order, not in his role as Chief Executive but in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the Military, the top man in everyone’s chain of command, that said simply, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is hereby rescinded. Gays will be allowed to serve in the US military. Make it so.” He could still do that today. He has both the power and the moral authority if he chooses to use it, and the fact that he doesn’t use it sends the wrong message. One does not bargain on morality. The Republicans know this. The Democrats need to learn it or be rolled over.

Gay marriage is more complicated because it must be worked through the legislative system, but it should be pursued aggressively as well. The government should have no interest in approving who marries whom. What it does have an interest in is assuring that as many adults as are inclined to do so have partners who can help them survive sickness and other life situations with a minimum of government help. Married people have a stable social structure that can help them weather life’s most difficult challenges and we should encourage marriages, including gay marriages, where we can.

“It’s the Morality, Stupid.”

Bill Clinton is well known for his campaign mantra “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” And, frankly, it’s still about the economy. But the economy is a stubborn thing that is going to take a while to recover. And there are still things people care about when the economy is being sluggish. So I suggest an auxiliary mantra: “It’s the Morality, Stupid.”

Most of the issues that matter in politics today are about morality. Not because every issue is intrinsically moral, but because so many ordinary political issues have gotten to such an extreme state that morality is now the dominating factor.

• Our treatment of the unemployed, especially during a recession, is a moral issue.

• Reliable health care is a moral issue. Our treatment of the economically disadvantaged speaks volumes about our society’s compassion.

• Regulating usurious conduct in consumer credit is a moral issue.

• Reliable basic education for all is a moral issue. (It’s also just sound economics to invest in ourselves.)

• The right of same-sex couples to legally commit to each other through marriage is most certainly a moral issue.

• Allowing women control over their own bodies is a moral issue.

• The right to do stem cell research to find cures for diseases sooner rather than later is most certainly a moral issue.

• The right to be taxed fairly is a moral issue.

• The decision to be at war is a moral issue both in how it speaks to our relationship with other nations and in how it illustrates our internal spending priorities given a finite budget.

• The question of whether we hold people, even non-citizens, without trial or whether we torture them for information is a moral issue. (Obama seems to have wavered on this, but that doesn’t make it suddenly not a moral issue.)

• Our excessive prosecution of even the most minor drug offense while failing to prosecute economic and environmental scams and disasters is a moral issue.

• Our stewardship of the environment is a moral issue both as it affects the environment itself and as it affects the world we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren.

The Republicans would like to frame these issues as ones on which their stand is uniquely moral and the Democrats’ stand is not. Such claims are just not true, but it's still up to the Democratic party to articulate and defend the morality that underlies their positions.

If they can do that, they will have the emotional message they need to to win votes and to win elections.