Talk to a "Moral Values" Voter

Smart negotiators are masterful at controlling the agenda when they sense a conflict in the needs of two parties. Democrats lose  these arguments because we unwittingly engage with conservatives on issues they prioritize, like gay marriage and abortion.

Gay marriage and abortion are not our issues. Issues are agenda items that represent problems. Within our own ranks, these social issues do not represent problems for us as  most liberals already believe gay people are entitled to equal rights and that women's reproductive rights are sacred. These are only issues for conservatives as the right wing of the Republican party continues its attempts to erode civil liberties and religious freedoms in this country.

I say it's time to to fight back. We need to take control of the public agenda and to set conservatives up to lose by making them talk about our issues - freedom from oppressive governments and social and economic justice.  Republican policies naturally undermine these fundamental American values, so this should be fairly easy to do.

Mission: Communication with a "moral values" voter
Objective: Regain control of the agenda

As progressive democrats, we must first realize that our agenda is not abortion and it is not "choice." Choices are important, but they are not essential to life. Life is essential to life. In the game of overly simplistic arguments, "life" will beat "choice" every time like rock beats scissors. We need to remind ourselves again that  choice and abortion are Republican-defined agenda items brought up to get us to react as though we are wrong and need to defend ourselves. We should not discuss abortion or choice with neo-conservatives.

The progressive liberal democrats' agenda is freedom and justice. ALL other political issues evolve from these "fundamental" American values. All the red-state voters get these super-man pledge of allegiance values (except perhaps the very very rich, who don't need to care about them). We should only discuss these issues if confronted with abortion, gay marriage, or stem-cell research. Here's an example of how the new argument might sound:

Abortion is murder! God says we will go to hell if we allow abortions to go on!

Living under an oppressive government is hell. Americans have died fighting for our freedoms. Americans are now dying in Iraq for their belief in American freedom. We are all guaranteed religious freedom in America.

Homosexuality is an abomination!
Stem-cell research is against the will of God. We must ban it!

This is America, and persecution of people with different religious beliefs is Un-American! Are you saying freedom is bad? Are you saying that it's okay to oppress people for their religious beliefs? Why do you hate freedom?

The agenda is now turned away from abortion, gay rights and stem-cell research and focused on freedom and oppression. Republicans will not discuss freedom, oppression and the issue of civil rights because these are Democratic issues. Republican polices are themselves oppressive as they restrict basic freedoms while undermining economic and social justice. We must raise the flag here and call them out.

Mission: Relocate the wedge to the right of the moderates.
Objective: Talk about "Abortion" with a  moderate Republican.

If we must talk about abortion, we must be empathic in our approach to the other person so we can come to know and understand the needs of the other team.

Once we understand their need to see fewer abortions, we can probably also agree that while a woman's right to choice should be sacred, no woman relishes the idea of an abortion. Reducing abortion means supporting women to have better options in birth control and childcare - these are on the social agenda of democrats.

In recognizing this, I think we need to quickly change the discussion of abortion over to strategies that will help reduce/eliminate abortion without legislation. This way we meet their need to see fewer abortions and our needs to live in a free society. We also partner with a moderate person and hopefully help them see our point of view on freedom, social and economic justice and tolerance.

Following this logic, the only things we can probably reasonably say about abortion to a moderate anti-choice Republican are something along the lines of:

You feel that there should be fewer abortions? So do I. Yet adoption is such a painful choice for many women who choose to have their babies. Why do you think women choose abortion?

What about a girl who was raped by her father? What are your feelings about that?

Could we work together to reduce the number of abortions by helping to create better childcare/education/job birth control options for women?

I've had this kind of conversation with a pro-life Catholic and it was even more effective than I would have guessed.  The idea here is to respect and answer to their needs for fewer abortions without any hint of legislation. Solutions that will both help to significantly reduce the number of abortions while protecting women's rights in a free society usually work for most people.

No Americans (other than fundamentalist Christians) really want oppressive government - that's why Republicans hate taxes. We can use this as a bridge and make the alliance with the moderates, hence removing the wedge here and placing it between them and the extreme right - who advocate for government involvement in people's personal lives.

Now, I do realize that the gay-marriage ban, the stem-cell research ban and the threat to Roe V. Wade are very real legal battles facing us and these are still framed in Republican terms. We will need to continue to stand up for these issues publicly as they are outlined because this is how opponents are targeting our freedom.

I am only suggesting that

1. we attack Republicans for their assault on religious freedom and social/economic justice by their attempts to legislate private behavior; and
   
2. in our day to day conversations with coworkers, family, or others who might have voted for their moral values, we should turn their attention to things government should protect, like truth, freedom, justice and civil liberties. We shouldn't support friends using language that says humans can't be trusted to make decisions about who to love or when to have children. We need to change the agenda to our own.

Because, really, when you make yourself a champion of truth, justice, freedom and the American way, what American can effectively disagree with you?

•  moral values

  Great diary, and as a therapist who often has to de-escalate out of control patients, I have used your approach successfully hundreds of times. Your wording is the key, and the respectful approach is right on.  I would like to add that a very important and effective issue that we liberals can offer, is our concern over the environment, and what that means to the safety of their children.  Since the current administration rolled back critical regulations on toxic emissions and toxic dumping by corporations,the increase in levels of mercury and other dangerous chemicals creates serious negative affects on the neurology of a fetus.  This helps me underscore the sacredness of life, issue.  I also point out the increase in asthma, due to the huge increase in particulates in our air, resulting from the "clean skies act".  Almost everyone I have spoken to on the conservative side had NO idea about the attack on our environment.  They may not care about trees, lakes, and rivers, but many do care about fetuses and babies.  I don't know if it swayed their votes this time, I rather doubt it, but I do know it takes time and repitition for people to really learn something foreing to their paradigm.  They will now be listening, reading or hopefully asking about the environmental piece.  And we have to stay on it! Again...good diary.

  by nancelot on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 11:22:46 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    I'm a therapist too and have really been wrestling with communication techniques. Your points about the environment are really good too, and I need to remember to include those when I consider these dialogues. Thanks for the encouragement!

    by Last Mechanic on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:56:39 AM PDT

•  Democrats are not all liberals

  first off, most of this country is not liberal and many democrats voted for the gay marriage amendments and are pro-life. MINORITIES in particularly are social conservatives and voted overwhelmingly for the gay amendments. yet we still vote Democrat because the other issues of war, poverty, economy, health care, are more important to us. got it? I am so sick of liberals assuming everuyone in the party has to agree with them. we're a big tent.

  the extreme liberals on the cultural left need to realize very few Americans share their hard-line views. most are in the muddied middle. i think abortion should be legal, but with restrictions and that more must be done to reduce it. i'm not ready to endorse gay marriage, maybe some civil unions.

  by ihlin on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:41:00 AM PDT

  •  Point Taken

    I should have used clearer langauge because I am aware that there are a lot of Democrats who are conservative or moderate and voted "moral values." In this entry I am really talking about liberals discussing their positions more effectively with socially conservative voters.

    That said, the argument posed here never suggests challenging or trying to change anyone's personal values - I think everyone should be free to live according to their own values. So what I was trying to say here is that moral values should be championed by the church and by families - not by the government.

    The goal would be to get moral values issues off the ballots and focus politics back on the economy, war, foreign policy, health care, etc. I believe we can all get along under a big tent, even liberals and conservatives, if we can agree where to draw the line where government should step into our personal lives. And I think that's a real possibilty.

    by Last Mechanic on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 08:23:26 AM PDT

    •  you are completely wrong

      the economy, war, health care to me ARE moral issues. i cannot separate them from my faith. this war is an atrocious sin. our health care system is immoral. the problem my evangelical left friends hate is that moral values has now been stolen by the right wing to define sexual sins as the end all be all of morality. we progressives need to expand what are "moral issues" by framing it in those ways.

      please read and absorb again this article, which i think is dead-on:

      http://www.christiansfordean.info/kerrylost.html

      by ihlin on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:14:24 AM PDT

      •  Communication with a liberal voter - Round 3

        First of all, let me say how difficult it is to listen to your ideas when you've attacked me by saying, "You are completely wrong." I am not completely wrong. I'm sure that I am not completely right either - but now I feel so defensive by your comment that I can barely hear you. See the communication problem here?

        We need to find another way to talk to each other so that someone doesn't have to be "right" while someone else is "wrong." Sorry if my framework for communication doesn't work for you, but it works for me. I stand by it.  Yet I've also changed it somewhat to reflect the good points you posted earlier. I am trying to listen.

        Anyway, as for the issue of morals versus no morals in political discourse, believe it or not, I'm a very moral person. I am also a very spiritual person, and hold the same feelings about the war, economic and domestic policies as you.

        But some of my positions on moral issues are clearly different from yours. Personally I am also tired of Christians behaving as though they are the only ones with morals and with faith in this country, just as you are tired of liberals behaving as though all Democrats must think like them.

        My belief is that we need to change the political conversations we have from religious values to "American" values - a place where our personal values intersect and cut across our religious differences.

        As you wisely pointed out, Democrats are people from many different cultures with many different religious beliefs. How do we choose which group to alienate in our big tent? Gays? Muslims? Jews? Asians? Indians? Evangelical Christians? Athiests? Who should we discount in the discussion? I suggest Democrats be inclusive rather than exclusive. We should find values that are common to most of us, regardless of the orientation of our faith.

        I really believe that freedom from oppression and social/economic justice are good "American" morals, as are the values of peace and protecting the environment. These ideals speak to many spiritual orientations, not just Christians, and they point to a boundary where government should end its invasion into people's private lives. If the church wants to tell people who to marry, fine. But let the government stay out of it.

        Why do I feel this way? Well, when someone votes to ban gay marriage, they vote to discriminate against one out of ten tax-paying Americans. One hateful, oppressive act hurts us all. I'm sure many Democratic voters, minority, Christian or otherwise, can understand that.

        By taking the Christian view of morality as our political agenda, we are not finding the common ground on the left or on the right. By taking issues that cut across belief systems, like oppression and freedom and justice, I think we can.

        by Last Mechanic on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:52:12 AM PDT