© Ronald L. Hirsch 2004-2008 All rights reserved.

Download in .pdf format

The election is long over. The people have spoken. The Chicago Tribune headline said "Bush rides moral issues, terror fears to 2nd term" and journalists generally agreed with that assessment. But there is a more fundamental point to be made about why John Kerry and the Democratic Party lost the election that provides the Party with direction in the coming months and years.

John Kerry said that this election was about voting for change ... but from what to what? In the weeks after the election, many Democratic leaders voiced concerns similar to those expressed by Walter Mondale who said, "We really need to work on the question of what we are for. Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don't think we're going to truly connect with the American people." Many commentators and others made that very point throughout the campaign. How sad and beyond belief that after a long and intense campaign, the quadrennial defining moment for the Party, it does not know the essence of what it stands for, what its vision is. How then could the American public?

Not only did the Kerry campaign fail to define the essence of the Democratic Party, it did not define John Kerry, it did not define George Bush, and it did not define the new radical Republican Conservative movement. This failure to define themselves and the opposition is what cost the Democrats the election, for it allowed the Republicans to misleadingly shape the public's image of both themselves and the Democrats. There are lessons to be learned.

The Vision Thing

Did John Kerry and the Democrats do everything they could to put their case before the American people? All the major issues were certainly covered during the campaign. Nothing was left unsaid. Or was there? Yes, the issues of Iraq and health care and education and the environment were addressed ... at least at a surface level. But the underlying difference in principles between John Kerry and George Bush, between the Democratic Party and the new radical Republican Conservative movement were not put before the American public. At best they were only hinted at. Yet these differences were stark and real.

We stand as a nation at a crossroad ... the soul of American democracy is at stake and the Democratic Party is fighting to preserve it. Although unspoken, that is the Party's defining cause and unifying principle, not just a grab-bag of seemingly unrelated policy positions. Over the next four years, the Party must take this cause to the American people in every corner of this land, regardless whether a state be red or blue, and rouse them to protect their American birthright.

The Soul of America

What is the soul of America? What is the core morality of American democracy? Nowhere has a more succinct statement of the soul of America been made than in these words from the Declaration on Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

These words, which every child knows by heart, are at the core of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are the morals, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is America's common faith regardless of a person's specific religious belief or lack thereof.

Our Declaration of Independence made a promise to the American people; it is our mission statement. But to what extent have we fulfilled that mission … can we say, "Mission accomplished?"

America's Mission Not Accomplished

We have created an extremely prosperous country, the richest and most powerful in the world, yet we live in a country of significant and increasing income inequality. According to census figures, while measures of income inequality decreased between WWII and 1968, since 1968 income inequality has actually increased, despite the prosperity of the 1990s, to the point where income inequality is now greater than it was in 1947. In other words, the rich have indeed gotten richer, and the poor and middle class have gotten relatively poorer, despite the middle class and poor working harder and harder. The average middle-income, two-parent family now works 660 more hours per year-or sixteen more weeks-than in 1979. But the average American production and non-supervisory worker's inflation-adjusted weekly wages are 5 percent below what they had been in 1973.

Not only is an astonishing proportion of our population living in poverty … even our inequality is unequal. In 2001, 11.7 million children under the age of eighteen, or one out of every six American children, were living below the poverty line. By race and ethnicity, 30 percent of African American children, 28 percent of Hispanic children, 11.5 percent of Asian children, and 9.5 percent of Caucasian children were poor.

In this rich prosperous country we also have great inequality in educational opportunity because the education a child receives depends on the wealth of the community in which he or she lives. We have an unemployment rate currently of 5.4%, which isn't bad, but 41 million people, almost 15% of the population, have no health insurance. Of those, 8 million are children. Despite the Medicaid program, 10 million poor people, or 31 percent of the poor, had no health insurance of any kind in 2001. Approximately 33 million people (nearly 11 percent of U.S. households) were food insecure, meaning that they did not have adequate access to enough food for a healthy, active life. During the Bush administration, more than 3 million jobs were lost during the recession and even now after more two years of so-called recovery, the net job loss still stands at around 1 million.

But it is not just with regard to the social issues of poverty and the working poor that the American dream remains just that for many people. Despite decades of laws against discrimination based on sex and race, and much progress, women and minorities are still often discriminated against in the jobs they get and the incomes they are paid.

Clearly, the vision promised by the Declaration of Independence is an almost impossible dream for a large portion of our fellow Americans. There is much work to be done before we can say, "Mission accomplished."

Besides the idealism behind the American dream, there is a very practical reason why these issues are of critical importance to the future of our country. How can a nation be strong when such a large share of its population does not have equal opportunity to the most basic elements of a healthy strong life … a good education, access to health care, and a decent job. Without such equal opportunity, our nation becomes more divided, large masses of the population become alienated from government, and the social fabric, the sense of community that binds us together as a nation, is weakened.

The record of the Bush administration on these issues is clear. Compassionate conservatism didn't make it past election day 2000. The specifics on his failings were amply discussed during the debates. And this criticism came not just from John Kerry and the Democratic Party.

In an August 2004 Sunday NY Times Magazine article, David Brooks, the well-respected Republican commentator, admonished the Republicans for providing big business with breaks, subsidies, and regulatory benefits that are "a cancer on modern conservatism" and a budget and tax system "favoring the well-connected, neglecting everybody else, breeding cynicism and sapping national morale."

The Kerry record and plan, and the Democratic Party's, were in stark contrast to Bush's. Democrats have always fought for the rights and well-being of all Americans, not just the rich and well-connected.

Bush Versus the American Social Contract

But to understand the real threat posed by the Bush administration to the soul of America, to understand that he has not just failed to move us forward in our mission, but that he has actually ushered in a change of direction, we need to go one step further in exploring the soul of American democracy.

Over the past two-hundred-plus years, a system has developed from the liberal foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution's Bill of Rights that carefully balances private rights versus the public good. What has evolved is an American social contract, which defines the relationship between citizens and government, and the responsibilities of both.

Most succinctly stated by Lincoln as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," that principle is one of shared responsibility. Citizenship brings with it public responsibilities as well as private rights. The role of government is to secure our rights and enforce our responsibilities and level the playing field of opportunity for all. Under this system, we are all in this together; each of us is responsible for supporting the government's efforts, each according to his ability … whether by paying taxes, by voting, by serving in the military, or in countless other ways. In modern times, this principle was conveyed by President Kennedy when he said, "ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country."

But during the past two and a half decades, and especially under the current Bush administration, a new radical Republican/Conservative movement has begun to undermine, if not assault, this carefully balanced system and the traditionally liberal American values that underlie it.

If this charge seems over the top, let me quote the words of the well-respected and very level-headed Bob Moyers from a recent commencement address, "The web of cooperation is under siege. A profound transformation is occurring in America as the balance between wealth and the commonwealth is threatened … a broad range of the American commons is undergoing a powerful shift away from public responsibility and obligation to private control and exploitation. … The basic constitutional principles of America are under assault-an independent press and judiciary, the separation of church and state, progressive taxation and the social contract."

Let me cite facts in three specific areas of policy-taxes and their impact, health care, and the environment and energy policy-to show the common thread in George Bush's approach to government.

The enactment of the federal income tax in 1913 brought with it the concept of using the tax system to redistribute wealth. It is a "progressive" tax system in that the more income one has, the higher the rate of taxation. The idea is not to "soak the rich." The progressive principle is rooted in the American social contract concept of shared responsibility: those with greater means have a greater obligation to support the government's work and its role in leveling the playing field and providing equal opportunities for those less fortunate.

The Bush tax cuts, however, by disproportionately favoring the top income brackets, result in placing the burden of the entire tax system more disproportionately on the middle class and working poor, thus making the system less progressive. This runs counter to our country's basic concept of fairness and the American social contract.

Moreover, with the huge deficits that have resulted from the tax cuts combined with the costs of the war in Iraq, many programs that help the middle class and the poor took major hits. Here are just two examples:

Bottom line, the tax cuts to the rich were more important to the Bush administration than preserving important programs that benefit the general public, children, and veterans, and more important than the resulting massive deficits that will be paid for disproportionately by the middle class and working poor for decades to come. The Republicans wouldn't even roll back the tax cuts for the rich in order to pay for the $87 billion appropriation to support the troops in Iraq. That's what John Kerry and the Democrats proposed. But they were voted down and instead the dollars were added to the national deficit. And that's why John Kerry ultimately voted no.

Health care is of course a major issue for all Americans, both for the 41 million who have none as well as those that do but see their costs escalating and worry about maintaining their health insurance if they loose their jobs or change jobs. Here again Bush doesn't understand the role of government under the American social contract and sides time and again with the drug companies and the insurers. The Bush administration has to date not allowed the importation of lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada. The government has also been forbidden from negotiating cheaper prices from drug companies under Bush's Medicare reform. And contrary to what he said in the debate, Bush has tried to water down a bill that has been stalled in Congress for 3 years to speed up the transition of drugs from patent to generic. Who benefits from these policies? Drug companies. Who suffers? The American public …the elderly, the middle class, and the poor.

Bush is fond of saying that our medical system is the envy of the world. Not so. Our medical profession and the state of our medical technology may be the envy of the world, but our system is wasteful, inefficient, and we are the only western industrialized country that does not provide health insurance to all its citizens. We can do better.

But perhaps no better example of the callous disregard of the greater public good can be found than in the Bush administration's environment and energy policies. In this area of government policy, again as in most, there are competing interests. On the one hand, each person, and each business has the right to make the most of his property and be free of government regulation. On the other hand, the government has an obligation to protect the larger public's right to, for example, breathe clean air and drink clean water. A reasonable balance must be struck … government policies must support the growth of business and the economy while protecting the long-term interests of the American public.

Consistently, though, the Bush administration has taken a one-sided approach, favoring industrial interests over the public interest. Mostly through regulatory changes, this has been happening on an almost weekly basis. Here are just a few examples from the hundreds available:

Even the manner in which the Bush administration developed its energy policy shows how contrary to the American social contract it is. Remember Lincoln's words, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." In developing its energy policy, a task force headed by Vice President Cheney (coincidentally a former oil man, as is President Bush) held a series of closed meetings at which only industry interests were invited to speak. No contrary voices representing the broader public interest were invited. The motto of this administration is clearly "government of industry, by industry, and for industry."

A Weak Leader Behind a Strong Facade

For many Americans, however, these issues I have been discussing pale behind their fear of terrorism. Given the horrors of 9/11, this fear is understandable. Who will make America secure again … George Bush or John Kerry … was a very important question in election 2004. Yet here too, both in examining the strategic approach to fighting the war on terror as well as the leadership provided by George Bush and his administration, the underlying issue is the fight for the soul of America.

First let's look as his record of leadership. While there can be no question that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 he rallied the entire nation behind him, and for a few precious moments, we were as one, strong and united, his overriding message to the American people over the past 3 years has been one of fear. This is not a leader like FDR who in the midst of crisis said to the American people, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Or Winston Churchill, who borrowed that line when he spoke to the English people during the German's WWII blitz of London. Both FDR and Winston Churchill played to the strength of the people, they played to the best in them. George Bush has not played to the best in the American people. Instead he and his team have consistently beat the drumbeat of fear, and fear weakens America, it weakens our spirit.

Why have they done this? I put to you that they have done this to manipulate the American public and divert the public's attention from both the Bush administration's failures in the fight against terrorism, its failure to focus on our real enemy-al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden-prior to 9/11 and its failure after 9/11 to destroy them in Afghanistan when we had the chance, as well as its failures here at home. And they have used fear to gain the public's acquiescence to a systematic erosion of our civil liberties, our constitutional protections from government intrusion, under the guise that we are in a war for our survival. Yet it is precisely at such times when upholding those rights is of critical importance to the maintenance of our democracy.

Bush's Arrogance Makes Bad Foreign Policy

Which brings me to the issue of George Bush's strategic approach and its impact on the soul of America. The Bush administration's series of bad strategic decision since 9/11 are symptomatic of a larger, more basic foreign policy issue which has not been highlighted during the campaign.

In his farewell address, President Eisenhower made the following observation:

Those words were enormously prescient, for during the Bush administration, arrogance, lack of comprehension of the Muslim world, and a failure to ask the broader public, not just those fighting in Iraq, to sacrifice have resulted in this failed and misguided war and in greatly damaging us at home and abroad. His arrogance and lack of comprehension have also resulted in his not signing several world-wide treaties, including the Kyoto treaty against global warming, which has further estranged us from our allies and the global community.

American foreign policy has always been pragmatic, and indeed, it must be. At its core, however, we need a foreign policy that is consistent with the principles this country has always said it stands for-democracy, freedom, human rights, respect for other cultures, and the legitimate aspirations of all people as voiced in the Declaration of Independence. But let us be clear … democracy cannot be forced on another people. The strategic vision stated by President Eisenhower meets this test; it is consistent with the soul of America.

Now in all fairness I should make clear that this is far from the first administration where failure to follow Eisenhower's admonition has damaged the United States. We have generally conducted a foreign policy in which our national interest has been defined almost exclusively by military/industrial concerns, again contrary to Eisenhower's famous warning. This has often resulted in gross stereotypes and a good-versus-evil analysis of who is friend or foe, an analysis that ultimately was often against the country's best interests.

For example, during the cold war, the United States supported any government that was anti-Communist, regardless how ruthless the dictatorship, and tried to destabilize any Socialist, Communist-sympathetic country, regardless how democratic. The idea of wooing Socialist leaders as friends of the United States was an oxymoron to a succession of U.S. administrations. And so the United States rebuffed several overtures from Ho Chi Minh for support against French colonial rule. We supported the assassination of the Socialist Patrice Lumumba who was the first elected president of the Congo and its replacement by the pro-West Mobuto regime. And the CIA plotted the assassination of Salvador Allende, the Socialist president of Chile.

We can never know what the world would have been like had we not taken such actions. But by not following Eisenhower's advice, we have created a world in which the United States is viewed with mistrust by much of the Third World. An anti-Americanism exists which has plagued our foreign policy and damaged our national security through the years. Similarly, Bush's actions in Iraq, his friend v foe language, and his failure to reach out to the vast majority in the Muslim world who abhor the terrorists' misuse of Islam, has resulted in inflaming the anti-American feelings among Muslims even further and worsened an already difficult national security problem.

One lesson that we should have learned from Vietnam and Israel's experience in fighting the Palestinians is that a guerilla war, an insurgency powered by an ideology, cannot be won even with overwhelmingly superior military power. Israel is now resorting to building a wall between the Palestinians and Israel to stop terrorism. We cannot build a physical wall around the United States even if we wanted to, which we certainly do not. No, the war against terrorism can only be won as Eisenhower suggested by combining our strength with the power of our ideas and our resolute efforts on behalf of the betterment of the human condition throughout the world. We win by gaining the respect of the world.

And that, in a nutshell, was John Kerry's and the Democratic Party's concept of American foreign policy. He made clear that if he were President, his approach to foreign policy and threats would combine strength with wisdom. Such an approach would use our military strength when necessary together with sound intelligence to defeat our enemies. It would use diplomatic action to isolate enemies or create win/win situations in trouble spots like the Middle East. And it would restore the credibility and respect of the United States by leading a multi-national effort to visibly improve conditions throughout the Muslim and Third world, being respectful and sensitive to Muslim and other cultures while supporting the legitimate aspirations of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-thus drying up the terrorists' pool of recruits and followers and ending decades of anti-Americanism. Only through the use of all these methods, by being true to the soul of America, will we ultimately succeed in this most challenging war and generally improve our national security.

The Strict Construction Game

Another important distinction between the Democratic Party and George Bush and the new radical Republican Conservative movement that goes to the soul of America is what I call "The Strict Construction Game." This is an area where, like many others, the new Republicans both misuse labels and like to have it both ways. George Bush said in one of the debates that he wanted judges who would not ban the pledge of allegiance from school because of the phrase "under God." Yet that is precisely what a true strict constructionist would do! When the phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge in 1954, it was an attempt to establish or recognize religion, at least in the sense of a belief in God, as government policy, in contrast with godless Communism. School recitation of the pledge thus violates the 1st Amendment when interpreted strictly.

No, the Republicans want judges to be "activist" when it suits their purposes, by narrowly interpreting the Constitution, limiting rights. On the matter of a woman's right to choose, they are against the activist finding of a right to privacy in the Constitution, because it was an expansive interpretation. Yet they want faith beliefs to replace Roe v Wade as the law of the land … certainly a very activist position. And while they say that on the issue of gay and lesbian rights and civil marriage, they want judges to read the equal protection clause of the constitution strictly, again what they really want is a narrow activist interpretation, for that amendment in no way indicates an exemption of gays and lesbians from it's protection. George Bush and his coterie are duplicitous if not mendacious!

Here again, the soul of America is at risk … is our Constitution to be interpreted broadly to expand rights, as has been the case as our country has matured and become more progressive over the years, or is the Constitution to be interpreted narrowly, restricting rights that even a literal strict construction would afford?

The Role of Religion in American Democracy

Finally, I want to address one more aspect of the soul of America … an issue that is of concern to almost every American, and that is the role of religion in our American democracy. Religion has had and will always have a valued and important place as part of the fabric of American life. Those who bemoan the lack of moral values in much of our population today have a valid point to make ... many have little respect for themselves and for others. Religion can and hopefully will play an important role in reestablishing traditional American moral values and feelings of community through the power of the pulpit and its relationship with its believers, but not through the power of the government. Church and state must remain separate.

The founding fathers, despite their deep faith, enshrined in our Constitution's First Amendment the recognition that there is no one "right" approach to God, no one "true" religion, that there are many religions and indeed many denominations within each religion, each of whom has sought their own way to approach God. They were determined to avoid the divisiveness caused by religious fights and discrimination in the old world. They were determined that this new egalitarian American democracy be governed by the laws of man, not the laws of God. And so the First Amendment created not just the concept of freedom of religion but it's companion concept of the separation of church and state. This concept is not antireligious, and is not against any particular religion. It is again about the greater good and the freedom of all. This concept has, until the Bush administration, been accepted as a bedrock principle of American democracy for 200 plus years by both Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. And it must so continue.

When government adopts policies that favor and impose the viewpoint of one religious group over the broader morality of the general populace, then such action is tantamount to the government "making a law respecting an establishment of religion," which is prohibited by the First Amendment. That is why John Kerry felt that, although personally opposed to abortion, he could not as an elected official force his religious beliefs on others through government action. Yet that is precisely what the Bush administration has done by adopting the tenets, the faith beliefs of the Religious Right in the areas of health care and health science policy. From stem-cell research to HIV/AIDS prevention and research to family planning and a woman's right to choose, George Bush has sought to impose the minority moralistic view of the Religious Right on the entire population through government action. This is a very dangerous precedent for our country and is perhaps the single most important reason why our country is more fiercely divided now than at any time since the Vietnam War.

Faith Trumps All

In the 2004 election, Bush played the "faith card" deftly, bringing out millions of evangelical rural voters throughout the country but especially in the swing states, with a major assist from Republican-sponsored ballot issues to prohibit gay marriage. So strong was the faith issue that many low-income non-urban workers voted for Bush despite the realization that Bush and the Republicans would do little to help improve their circumstances. They voted against their economic self-interest.

Given the unalterable positions of the Democratic Party regarding a woman's right to choose and gay and lesbian civil rights, one might say that there is little Democrats can do to win over conservative Christians to these policies. Yet recently, taking the lead from Senator Clinton, Democrats have made the important point that we are all against abortions, but that Democrats believe that the best and most constitutional way to reduce the number of abortions is by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through realistic sex education, stressing abstinence, prevention, and the use and distribution of condoms.

And aren't these and other Democratic Party positions based on a profound respect for life? In yet another brilliant display of propaganda based on misappropriation of words, Bush claimed the mantle of a "life-affirming" president based on his pro-life, anti-stem cell research positions. Yet which person is truly pro-life-one who protects the unborn even above the life of the mother but disregards the suffering of millions of his fellow citizens caused by their lack of work, their lack of health insurance, their lack of enough food to eat, their lack of equal opportunity to access a good education, and their exposure to harmful industrial pollutants, or one who values and protects the lives of the living who are less fortunate and who values the life and well-being of the mother over that of the unborn? That is the point the Kerry campaign needed to make to the American people.

In a similar stroke of brilliant if misleading marketing, the Republicans have long branded the Democrats as anti-family because of their pro-choice, pro-gay and lesbian civil rights positions. Yet ironically, the Republican/Conservative policies that oppose universal health insurance, give short-shrift to the economics of the working-class poor and middle-income workers, and degrade the environment are far more harmful to a family, and thus "anti-family," whereas the Democratic Party positions on these issues strongly support a stable, healthy family.

Moreover, the Democrat's policies on choice and gay rights actually strengthen the family ... in the one instance by not bringing unwanted and uncared-for children into this world, creating a danger for both the child, the family and society, and in the other by encouraging more families to be accepting of their gay and lesbian children and ending the cruel and painful separation that in the past was the norm. Even with regards to gay civil unions or civil marriage, no one has yet to articulate how such legal recognition of gay relationships would threaten the institution of marriage; in fact, it would not. On the contrary, it would bring the societal benefits of civil marriage to non-traditional families, thus adding to the stability of our society and the well-being of children in those families.

Here again, Democrats must define themselves as well as define the Republicans, rather than let the Republicans control the playing field. I believe Democrats can connect with these voters on broader issues of faith, setting forth its own bona fides on faith and family values, to at least blunt the calculatingly divisive rallying cry of abortion and gay marriage and perhaps even put Bush on the defensive on these broader issues.

We do ourselves and conservative people of faith a disservice if we do not recognize the purity of their hearts and beliefs and their basic desire to do what is just in the eyes of God. There is nothing in their belief system which is inherently antagonistic to the vision and policies of the Democratic Party.

The Fight for the Soul of America

Twelve years ago at the Republican National Convention, Pat Buchanan made the now famous statement, "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war ..." As he painted it, defending the soul of America were those who are pro-life, for strict-constructionist judges, and "against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women." Attacking the soul of America he said, were those who were for a woman's right to choose, for the rights of gays and lesbians to be treated as equals and, by implication, for judges who interpret our Constitution as a living document. He said, "this is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."

I put to you that there is indeed a war going on in our country for the soul of America, but it is a very different war than the one painted by Pat Buchanan. The soul of America that is being attacked is the very heart of American democracy. In this war, the roles are reversed. It is George Bush, together with the Religious Right and neo-conservatives, who is attacking the heart of American democracy. Defending it is the Democratic Party, together with conservatives of the old school, Goldwater conservatives, moderates and liberals, whether they be Republicans, Independents, or Democrats, who root themselves in the spirit of our founding documents.

The fight is not about big government versus small government, high taxes versus low taxes, rich versus poor, or the fine points of a multitude of policy proposals. The issue is what must the role of government be in order to live up to the words in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and what is the role of each of us under the American social contract. The issue is saving America from a conservative radicalism on economic, environmental, social, foreign policy, and moral fronts.

To accomplish this end, the Democratic Party must unite behind these principles and take this message to every corner of the land. It must shatter the false marketing image the Republicans have created for themselves as principled, life-affirming, and pro-family. And it must continue to develop fresh government policies rooted in the soul of our democracy, yet crafted to meet the needs of our society and our economy now and in the future, in a world where many of the assumptions of the past are no longer valid.

If we succeed in this mission, the result will be a stronger, more secure America.

Ronald Hirsch
Author, We Still Hold These Truths, www.westillholdthesetruths.com