Some things I can try to address quickly, and others with more time. Most but not all of these are places where my writing was not very clear.

To sPh’s point, I certainly support the separation of church and state, which I believe leaves both the state and faith communities stronger.

To Allsburg’s related point, I did not mean to conflate religion and morality and appreciate the pushback. I believe that morality and ethics (which I intentionally conflate) are a proper discourse for politics. Religion makes sense for a candidate to discuss to the extent that it shaped a candidates values. In other words, I do not care about a candidate’s faith but I sure as hell care about his or her values, whether that comes from a secular/philospophical or religious space.

To John, I am also with you about justice, not charity. I am for universal health care, a living wage, etc on the justice front. My point about government regulation not being able to solve all problems was in the narrow context of the earlier conversation about the accessibility of internet porn. Much to the contrary, what I have been trying to criticize all week is how much the Dems continue to argue within a framework set by the right in the 80s. I think we are so scared to talk about government that we appeal to the same greed that they invoke. A call to the common good is a restoration of what I consider a founding principle of progressive, namely that we are in this together.

Eric, a quick clarification there as well. I was not arguing that a lack of religion caused our moral decline. The cause was a convergence of factors, including the “greed is good” logic offered by conservatives in the 1980s. In the words of my earlier post, they made virtue out of vice by suggesting that the best way to help others is to look out ruthlessly for yourself.

More responses shortly. Thanks for all the feedback, positive and negative.

Posted at November 2, 2007 2:10 PM in response to Should We Fear a Religious Left?

Love the Lincoln quotes, BevD. Thanks.

Posted at November 1, 2007 7:10 PM in response to Our Culture War on Greed

Let me say something about moral priorities. I spent the first 3 days as a guest blogger speaking almost entirely about the Iraq War, torture, and the possibility of war in Iran. The emphasis of my posts on conviction politics was that Dems too often fall back into the safe space of the "it's been mismanaged" or “not our business” critique rather than making the case for what was wrong about this war from the start – that unilateral preemptive war is fundamentally unethical.

Even with this post, I spent the bulk of this post talking about an ethical critique that applies primarily to our economy, health care, wages, and torture. Then I mentioned the explosion of internet porn as an exaple. Yet several of the posts seem to suggest that I am so obsessed with banning people from seeing porn (a position I did not take) that I am ignoring these other issues. That kind of response, frankly, seems utterly out of step with what I have presented. I obviously knew the porn example would provoke a response, but I find it disconcerting that hundreds more words have been spent responding to that than to the points about economic fairness and a just end in Iraq, a plan we spent months talking to Iraqis and security experts to develop. One of the things that bothers me about our national debate on values is that we end up spending more time talking about sex than war and justice. It is not that we should never talk about sex publicly but that we should be able to do without it immediately trumping other issues of greater urgency.

I am also trying to make a deeper point, which may not have been clear. I do believe there is a connection between our cultural values and the policies that emerge on war, wages, and the environment. This was my point about Dr. King’s prophetic speech on Vietnam. He went well beyond that single war to talk about a culture of militarism, racism, and excessive materialism that enabled it. I believe that the have conservatives won, and continue to win, the moral case for greed and for security through unilateral force in part because we don't even want to have the conversation. If talking about what is truly good means opening the possibility that someone may question our personal choices, we resent it.

I believe our problems go deeper than the war in Iraq, and the build up to war in Iran is a perfect example. If we keep talking about isolated problems ( Iraq ) instead of the values that enable them (militarism, exceptionalism, instant gratification), we will always be fighting as underdogs when the next debate arrives.

Posted at November 1, 2007 7:09 PM in response to Our Culture War on Greed

Another quick response to Mt57, I agree with both your points about pluralism and seperation of church and state. But whether we use the word morality, ethics, values or nothing at all, we are having a conversation about the same thing. Our fear of using the words because they feel religious to some does not change the fact that we are having a conversation about right and wrong when we talk about Iraq, torture, taxes, healthcare etc.

What I like about the common good is not that everyone has the same definition of it but that this is a good set of terms for the debate. I think a politics that asks only "Am I better off than I was four years ago?" is an enemic one compared to "are all of us better off, particulalry the most vulnerable."

My perspective on the role of values and the common good has been shaped by my comparative experience from working on justice and politics in a dozen countries (Sierra Leone, Darfur, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chile, India etc). I consider it more the norm to see politics as a converation about values and priorities. for some people, those values are shaped by their faith, for others their secular values, for others the bottom line (which, despite claims of neoliberals that the market is somehow norm-neutral, that is its own values judgement).

As for politicians talking about faith, if that is something important to them, then I want them to tell me that and then vote according to what I know. If their values are shaped by a set of life experiences, I want to know about those. To me, knowing what will shape a poliicians decisions is distinct from whether the state, with its use of legitimate violence, should be totally indpt of religion.

Posted at November 1, 2007 5:31 PM in response to Our Culture War on Greed

Thanks for the great comments and vehement critiques. Some I can clarify and on others we may agree to disagree. Let me first deal with everything except the porn example and then throw together some responses on that:

I am happy to recast the entire argument to be about ethics rather than morality, but I consider that a distinction without a major difference. The definition of ethics I just looked up online said “a theory or a system of moral values.” Some of us may differ on this, but I think one of the most important functions of politics as a public space (res publica) is to be a conversation about what we value as a country. The problem in our country is that only one side has been using those words. They are the problem, not the words or the ideas. But I am fine casting it as ethics.

Second, there is a big difference in my mind between having a public conversation about ethics and supporting government regulations or criminalization based on that judgment. I rant about CEO salaries, and for good reason, but there are only limited options for imposing that moral judgment about fairness through the government. I would not use the force of the state (i.e. legitimated violence) to prevent someone from buying a Hummer, but I have ethical concerns about how non-commercial use of gas guzzlers makes our country less safe. Each individual has the right to shop at Wal-Mart, and that can coexist with having a conversation about what kind of economy that supports.

There are at least three levels of action I could recommend. First is criminalization for something that is morally/ethically non-negotiable, such as torture. The second would be something we might disincentivize or encourage (savings, good health, energy efficiency). Third would be things that one might decry but nothing more (e.g. infidelity).

I agree with you hoppycalif2 about taxes. What infuriates me the most is not that the elites get these tax boondoggles but that they actually feel like they are doing everyone else a favor for accepting them. If you believe trickle down works well, then the CEO’s tax cut is like an indirect gift to the poor. That is a very scary place for a country to reach.

But I think we do need to look beyond the economic and beyond the macro. Like many, I think, when I say that unilateral preemptive strikes are wrong I mean something more than just that such tactics will make us less safe (though they will). It is that they are morally wrong.

In the end, I consider it a strength of politics to talk about where we are going as a country, because those same values end up being reflected in our policies. If a politician decries CEO salaries, he may not be able to bring them down, but he understands the problem of economic fairness. One reason voters care about values is because we cannot know what issue will arise, but if I trust someone’s values (e.g. sticking up for the little guy, opposing torture, protecing the environment – all moral principles), I am more confident that he will back you in the end.

More on porn in a bit.

Posted at November 1, 2007 5:11 PM in response to Our Culture War on Greed

I am with you about the illegitimacy of the Iraq war – the thrust of my post yesterday was that unilateral pre-emption is never legitimate. But I think emphasizing this point alone creates the impression that we can take a mulligan – admit it was a screw-up and act like it never happened. In my mind, this creates more rather than less moral obligation on the US to solve the crisis. On this one narrow point, I agree with President Bush. But the President's status quo solution misses the reality on the ground, namely that committing to full withdrawal is the first step (not the last step) towards stabilizing the situation.

The NEW plan for Iraq I outlined yesterday was developed in direct consultation with Iraqis, as well as with security analysts from around the world. The clear word from them was that they want a political solution, and that a commitment to immediate withdrawal by US troops is a crucial catalyst for a new political process that could produce something that has been missing from the start – legitimacy.

-Tom

Posted at October 31, 2007 9:45 PM in response to Why We Cannot Win the Iraq Debate

Thanks everyone for the great feedback. I am going to have more time to engage with some of this tonight, but let me say a few things. First of all, my use of the word "she" wasn't a subtle hint about my gender – in fact, I am, have been, and will remain a male and I have deep conviction about that fact.

Most of yall wanted specifics so I have responded with a post today about Iraq that is pretty wonky and should give you a concrete example of what I have in mind. Also, on the question about civil liberties, I did a post about FISA last week that Open Left picked up. You can check it out here: http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1879. I should be covering some of the other issues in tomorrow’s post. If not, I will try to respond to you directly in this space.

Mike, thanks for your concern about water – this has been a brutal time for folks here, but we did get some solid rains over the weekend that have provided a bit of relief.

Moondancing, I love sitting down with Republicans, so feel free to hook me up with your parents. I think there is plenty of room to convert folks, but not by pandering. Let them know what we truly believe and say it with conviction. We already have a bunch of Republicans interested in the campaign not because of some artificial move to the middle but because we are putting real solutions on the table.

Posted at October 30, 2007 11:57 AM in response to Conviction Politics... in Practice