How to Win a Culture War

1.) Start by taking it seriously. The culture wars are not distractions from real political business: John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin may be cynical, but conservative enthusiasm for her is not. Progressives can continue to be outraged by the campaign's shameless distortions; we can continue to hope for damning stories about the governor's treatment of librarians or brothers-in-law. None of it will matter till we get our tone right. Pointing to the economy, stupid, may have worked in 1992, before Christian fundamentalists at home and Islamic fundamentalists abroad forged the explosive political climate we now know. Now it's time to drop the condescending claims that voters in Kansas, and elsewhere, let themselves be fooled into voting for candidates who trumped up questions about values to blind them to their real -- that is, economic -- interests. Many people insist on voting for values that are larger than their individual economic interests. They ignore bread-and-butter questions because they do not want to live on bread alone.

Barack Obama, who chose the South Side of Chicago over Wall Street, understands this sort of hunger very well -- which is why his improbable journey is so close to reaching the White House. Michelle Obama's convention speech was most moving where it reflected that longing: to work towards a world that is what it ought to be, rather than settling for the world as it is. That's a distinction that goes back to Immanuel Kant, and before him, to the Prophets, but today you're more likely to read it in Newt Gingrich than elsewhere. For however shabbily conservatives may behave in private, they offer a public conception of goodness few progressives know how to defend. Right-wing talk of morality and honor can be empty, but that's not the same as being meaningless; empty concepts can be filled with content. Progressives, by contrast, have deflated the concepts themselves.

2) Forget about embarrassment. It doesn't matter how many colleges Sarah Palin stumbled through, or whether she knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite -- or even between Iran and Iraq. Most Americans don't. She does one thing they do well in the heartland: she talks about morals, not "morals". Democrats lost the last election because too many of us cannot. We are uncomfortable with moral language, and if we use words like morality and hero at all we distance ourselves by putting the words in scare-quotes - as if to reassure anyone who might question their legitimacy, or ridicule us for being sappy, that we didn't really mean it. Our moral positions -- not to mention our policy proposals -- may be far more substantial, but that doesn't matter now. Until we can voice our moral values with self-confidence, they will not get the hearing they need. This is not a matter of framing or packaging, but of conviction -- and you don't need much education to tell the difference.

Whether you focus on corporate fraud or child pornography, it's hard to deny that public morality is frayed. Many who are most troubled by that seek moral foundations in traditional religious institutions. And many who care about the separation of church and state are thus reluctant to use moral language with full voice -- however deep and genuine their own moral practices may be. One way to answer both of them is by looking at the Bible itself.

3) Learn to use their weapons. Take a favorite fundamentalist text, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you think you know the story, it's time to look again. The sin that did in the Sodomites was not fornication or homosexuality, but the local demand to gang-rape two strangers to death -- a demand which, according to legend, reflected the Sodomites' general inclination to turn moral law upside down. The strangers turned out to be angels, who blind their would-be tormentors and prove their undoing, but the most interesting part of the story is what happens before it. Abraham challenges God's plan to destroy the two cities, risking his life to argue with God: would the Judge of all the earth really destroy the just and the unjust alike? In a world in which even ordinary sovereigns were ill-inclined to take lessons from their subjects, Abraham dares to remind the King of Kings that He's about to violate moral law. And after a slow, careful, and dramatic argument, God agrees to spare the cities if enough righteous people can be found there. The principle is one we need to recall: rape is a criminal action -- and so is collateral damage.

At a time when the deaths of Afghani children -- in a war fought from the air because our troops are tied down in another one they shouldn't have fought -- bring shame on our nation, and supporters to the Taliban, this argument is worth revisiting. Collateral damage involves hard questions about the value of innocent life, which is why the right prefers to concentrate on what they think are easy ones. But too much is at stake to risk on another argument about which month life begins. Still less can the word choice ring as substitute for the value of life. Progressives need to accept the need for moral seriousness that drives conservative applause for Palin -- and to use conservatives' own texts to show that they cannot find moral clarity in blind faith. For the most important lesson learned at Sodom and Gomorrah is that even a direct line to God will not solve every moral problem. If Abraham needed to think for himself to decide what was right, none of us is ever exempt. Religion is one way in which many people choose to express moral seriousness, but it isn't the basis of it- - even for the Father of the Abrahamic faiths. This is good news for all of us, for it should remind both religious and secular voters of what really matters. They're called values. Not "values".

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

You gentlemen ( and ladies) who think you have a mission
To purge us of the seven deadly sins
Should first sort out the basic food position
Then start your preaching, that"s where it begins...

Food is the first thing, morals follow on

So first make sure that those who are now starving
Get proper helpings when we all start carving

Weill/Brecht "Drei Groschen opera"

[Mildmannered]

Arguing with a fundamentalist or a true believer of any stripe is a waste of good breath because they will never change their minds.

[GrainOSand]

Determined compassion needs not teleprompter or PSA, it shines through and people are moved. Mr. Obama needs to return to the heady days of the primary when he brought inspiration to bear on this drab political process. Take issue with shaping minds through manipulative advertisement; take a documentary over a thirty-second ad. CSPAN and PBS are the best TV venues for the thinking and concerned.

The man needs to take his case to the people. He needs to do in your-face type campaigning and his ads need to reflect his true love of country not as sound byte but as poetry in motion, as compelling message in action, palpable -- tangible -- REAL!

Sarah Palin is a non-story in terms of Mr. Obama telling his story. Something done out of the spirit of competition versus compassion is something that can be done better. No love for the game might bring fame but seldom does it bring meaningful change. Mr. Obama needs to focus on being transformational and have Joe Biden make the case for how transformation will happen via his keen insight into why Washington is broken. Together they need to tag team on why the GOP message is a losing carbon copy of an antiquated message of narrow-minded shortsightedness that brings no change; just more of the same. Mr. Obama needs to say where we are now, and why his view is important for this now and any targeted then. Make the case -- make the case.

[KiwisCanFly]

Great article Susan Neiman. I rather enjoyed the story of Sodom etc. I'm going to learn it and use it LOL

I will attempt to find some more, any suggestions?

[Susan Neiman - Huffpost Blogger]

Try the Book of Job, too.

[aofh]

When was the last time you argumed with a fundamentalist or true believer (of any stripe)? At some point you realize that you aren't really arguing the interpretation of a passage in the Bible. In truth, you're not arguing at all because there is no one there to argue with. As Bush says, it's you're either with us or against us.

I love your example using Sodom and Gomorrah, but for a lot of these people sex and homosexuality are the issue and God does what God does best: punish. They don't see Abraham's argument, they don't see moral ambiguity. Indeed, moral ambiguity is most threatening to them which is why you can't argue the Bible. As for the story, Abraham's consciousness is doomed and God gets to do what he wants to do. I'd be willing to bet that the consciousness thread was added by a later writer who felt a little squeamish. Probably a liberal.

[Susan Neiman - Huffpost Blogger]

It's really crucial not to view all fundamentalists - or true believers of any stripe, as you put it - as being the same. True, most people who have been wedded to one worldview for decades are unlikely to have their minds changed by arguments, but there are an awful lot of (especially younger) people out there who are looking for something they are not getting from secular culture. If they get respect, and see whole-hearted conviction - something Obama shows at his best - they may be open to less rigid interpretations of their worldviews, and to looking for shared perspectives. I've seen it happen. This is a moment where every voice counts.

[LiberalDemIda]

That's why negative campaigning and quick, short "smack-down" quips are successful. Americans are too busy working 2-3 jobs in order to keep their heads above water to listen to long dissertations.

For all his great speeches and explanations of his vision for a new America, Obama's greatest moment most used on air was at the Convention when he said "ENOUGH!" with that wonderful, goosebump-inducing echo that captivated us all.

One word... ENOUGH!

It's his. He should use it again and again, in all his ads and speeches to counter the lies and distortions, pointing them out followed by the word: ENOUGH!

Short, sweet, to-the-point and undeniably powerful.

Obama/Biden '08/'12!!

[VoteforPedro]

The problem with using the bible is that you can cherrypick sections to support literally anything.

However, that's not to say that it can't be fun to mess with the bible literalists.

[S1m0n]

There are texts in the bible sufficient to support any position you want to take on any issue; it's a huge, document written over most than a thousand years by people who belonged to different times and cultures and spoke different languages. One of the few shared characteristics of the bible-writers is a fondness for paradox as a teaching and thinking tool. Because of these traits, the bible is crammed with contradictions. There is ample support in it for nearly any position you might want to take. Similarly, the claim that any group or individual takes the bible literally is always a lie. You can't; it contradicts itself too much. You're forced to pick the parts you feel like believing and ignore the parts you don't.

All of which means that responding to a group which wants to use the bible to justify hate by reinterpreting the passages they've chosen is futile. They're already decided to ignore that part, and they're not approaching the text in good faith, anyway.

[syllabubjones]

Which group? Small town voters?

Sounds to me that you propose throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think we need to take into account that there are a lot of people out there without the time to spend on political sites, watching campaign ads, etc. They get their news in short blips and through talking to their friends.

If they start to hear a message from Obama that sounds like them, they are more likely to respond to it positively. The key of communication is to know your audience.

We won't reach extremists, the religious right, or hard core Republicans. I do think however that it is possible to reach conservatives, especially small town voters, who contrary to popular belief, don't like liars and hypocrites.

[SeekerOne]

I believe that Obama's message of hope is very tied into a collective longing to be better than what we are. I also believe it is time for some more soaring oratory. You are right that we need to be much wiser if we hope to persuade those who don't see the world as we do.

[ResistanceisFutile]

This is to obtuse to use as talking points. The simpler the better!

That is why, when Palin parades her daughter and family in front of millions, saying, "look at me, look at us, family values, morales that you should strive for", we need to show that these hypocrites are no better then anyone else, by exposing their hypocrisy.

[Nickesq]

Just as a conversation about morality based on Biblical terms can give a common language to the culture wars and can thus give those of a liberal conviction a means of persuading those of a conservative conviction, we should be thinking in terms of expanding this conversation.

Muslims are also monotheistic, believing in the God of the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran. For whatever reasons, and I suspect nefarious ones, we in the West have erased from history their contribution to Western Civilization, the Enlightenment, and the Renaissance. We have largely ignored both Muslim and Jewish philosophers whose work informed Western philosophers.

Fundamentalists, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, take an extreme form of their respective belief systems and make it an absolute. The moral battle should not be seen as being between different religious fundamentalisms but rather between the fundamentalist and moderate views within each camp. By excluding Muslims from this conversation as we have cleansed their role from history, we have ceded too much ground to the fundamentalists of all monotheistic religions.

[syllabubjones]

This is a great post, and each of us needs to listen. The Republican Party has not started a culture war, but called attention to an already existing culture war. Much of the population thinks America lacks morals. We are a country clearly divided over how to live.

Liberal and progressives go wrong by treating this situation like the '60s. We're closer to the '30s. Stark economic conditions, bank failures, extreme religions, harsh weather patterns. People don't cling to their values because they're stupid; they do it because it gives them hope.

Barack Obama wins on the integrity and honesty curve, but goes wrong in running an antiseptic campaign. He needs to get in there and get dirty to prove to the American people he will fight to the bitter end for us.

The Democratic primaries are past, and the campaign must re-jigger the strategy for the new audience. Perhaps Bill Clinton can help, but this is a much tougher climate than the '90s. We need a Rove, someone to take Obama's message and broadcast it to small towns, where people think he's a Muslim who wants to raise their taxes. They must hear Barack Obama's values in their language.

Stop insulting a good percentage of the populace with words like stupid and ignorant if you want to win their votes. Get your heads out of your asses and embrace Obama's message of unity. You can only convince someone if you respect them first.

[OETKB]

The heart of liberal "angst" is its inability to stand up to the moral strength of its ideas. . We should be adamant our proposals have collective value to society and are It is in our self interest to ensure decent survival for all citizens. The other side pushes individualism to the absurd and have a painted a world unfit for anyone. Their world view divides whole swaths of population groups into "good" and "evil" as if we all did not share the same species DNA.

In a way they depend on us to stop them. They know they are tied to their ideology so tightly that it would embarrass them to actually change their mind. They could not bare the isolation of being cast out of their tribe. They cling to this balance of "good" versus "evil" to justify their beliefs. God knows what they would do if everyone believed as they do and consequently had no one to fight against. Probably at that juncture they would finally examine the teribbleness of what they had wrought. No science, no decent health care, no creativity, no art, no music, no meaningful survival. Time for the "End Days."

[CindyWV]

I appreciate your ideas, Susan, as most idealistic people likely do, progressives in particular. Human nature being what it is, though, no matter what the society or culture, we've yet to move beyond the socially instinctual "us vs. them" mentality and its fear of those who are different in some way. Dress it up in whichever garb, whomever the people, wherever they might live, and at the core you still find "tribalism." Hopefully my own children and their children will see a day when the notions of tolerance and acceptance don't *necessarily* instill this fear. The conservatives are master manipulators when it comes to making use of this one.

[MagisterLudi]

As Marshall McLuhan said:"Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be."
This is EXACTLY whats going on here. The only war is between competing images. Both candidates promote very similar politics with a few exceptions. We MUST stop believing the campaign slogans from both parties.Majority of promises made in a heat of a campaign are traditionally, conveniently and cynically ignored ignored by American politicians once in power. Let' s make 'em talk issues and make concrete iron clad promises.

[nellie]

The politics of these two candidates are very different. It is beyond cynical to promote the idea that they view economics, education, foreign affairs, or any other critical issue in the same light.

Let's stay on the honest side of the road, if we can.

[MagisterLudi]

Both are social conservatives. Both vote regularly for multi-corporate interests: Cheney's energy bill, bankruptcy reform, both hold secret meetings with Evangelicals, AIPAC, corporate moguls. Both support Georgian aggression. Both are born -again Christian Senators. Strip the campaign rhetoric and you've got 2 corporate stooges. One is extreme right and the other One is conservative center with messianic pretensions.