Bad Religion

An email sent to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in reponse to his most recent column ("Time to Get Religion," November 6):

Mr Kristof:

Have to disagree with you, both on principle and pragmatically. If the Dems follow your advice, what would be the point of having a second party at all? The philosophy you outline has already been embraced by moderate Republicans. (Can you say Arnold Schwartzeneggar? Rudy Giuliani?)

As for Michael Moore, the problem was never the content of his argument. The problem was tone. Howard Dean had the same problem, or was at least successfully portrayed as having it. In addition, I'd wager that if Moore looked and dressed like Jude Law, people would've had far less objection. I know, I know: that's reality, an incontrovertible consequence of the media culture in which we live. We have to deal with it. But it still points to the fact that substance matters less than style and delivery.

With regard to religion, your prescription is fine if we're willing to cede one of the fundamental principles of American democracy, which is the exclusion of theology in the formation and application of law. We may lose this battle anyway — are already losing it in certain instances — but that doesn't mean it's not a battle worth fighting, or that the pendulum won't swing back as it's done before.

The biggest trouble with your prescription, aside from its abandonment of principle in favor of victory, is that the chances of it leading to victory are slim. Republicans are hands-down better at articulating homespun centrism, and hands-down better at portraying their Democratic opponents as principle-free hacks. In polls asking which candidate actually seemed to mean what he was saying — that is, to believe in it — Kerry consistently lost, and by a wide margin. People got the impression he'd say anything to get elected. They weren't convinced he actually stood for something at all. Part of the reason they believed this is that Republicans told them so (and told them so convincingly, using soundbites Kerry helpfully provided). Another part is that Kerry and the DNC have spent the last 15 years following advice much like yours, with the result that their capacity for articulating a coherent vision for the nation has atrophied. No one, including Democrats, has any idea what the Democratic Party stands for. We know what the party historically stood for, but we don't know what kind of world modern Democrats want to shape. You can't say that about Republicans.

And you can't apply Clinton to any other circumstance. Clinton is the most gifted politician of his generation, and his charisma — like Reagan's — transcends policy. There were a whole lot of people who just didn't give a damn what Clinton's politics were; they liked the guy. They still like the guy: if he'd been running against Bush, there's no doubt in my mind he'd've won. It's also worth noting that when he did run, it was against two incredibly uncharismatic, untelegenic, uncharming sourpusses. And the overall political tenor throughout Clinton's two terms, though moderate by today's standards, was still moderately Republican.

Something else about Clinton: if he'd been running, we'd've spent a hell of a lot less time talking about Vietnam. Which brings me to a final point: the Democrats ran, at best, a mediocre campaign. Even before the Democratic convention, I got on the elevator in my office building in Manhattan and was joined by a woman who I'd guess was in her middle-thirties, professional. The news screen on the wall flashed something about Kerry and Vietnam, and the woman said, under her breath but impulsively, irresistibly, "Shut up about Vietnam already." I don't know if she planned to vote for Bush or not, but I do know Kerry had little hope of reaching her after that — especially since Vietnam's presence in the conversation only expanded. If Democrats were out of touch with anything, it was what American voters wanted to hear about. They hemmed and hawed, started and stopped, tried one thing and then another. Sometimes they hit it right and sometimes they missed completely. In the end, it was hard to say what it all added up to. The most consistent support they got was from people who couldn't stand the thought of four more years of Bush.

I think before you jettison the product, you try to revamp your marketing strategy. And you find some better salesmen too. Maybe some who actually know what the product is, and like it, and think others should like it too, and can talk about it clearly and movingly. Then you'll really know whether there's a market or not.