"Okay, smart guy, show me."

Got an email from a reader saying, essentially, the above.

Okay, I will. But first, two clarifciations.

1. We are dealing with the impression of "morality" not it's actual practice. As they say, it's not a principle unless it costs you something. Heretofore, nobody on the "morality" side is giving up a damn thing.

2. Understand that when I'm referencing morality as viewed through politics, or business, much of what get's said is framed in bumper-sticker-simple assertions. As practiced, it's hit and run spirituality--points scoring--that doesn't wait around for the practical evidence to catch up to the emotional response and the inevitable conclusion that comes from comparing the two: You talk a good game, but you are insincere.

I wrote the following stuff over at Digby's blog (link dissappeared) back around the time of Rush's Oxycontin confession:

The rules of the game currently being drawn in the coming '04 hairpull and carefully cultivated to the media (to, not in, the media--they're being re-conditioned in prep, again), is that right wing complaint is constructive to the fabric of discourse. Left wing observations of the Right are destructive. (David Brooks -NYT) And that right wing fallibility is evidence of commitment, albeit with natural human imperfection. (David Drier - Arnold Campaign Co-chair). In business you might call this emphasizing Brand Identity over Quality Assurance.

What's this mean? Simple. The reason that Righties do so well in the face of seemingly inexcusable failings is that they often place people before ideas, absolute group identity before absolute individual consistency. People identify far more deeply and resonantly with other people than with abstracts like "ideas". Some of us enjoy the jui-jitsu of wrestling with patterns, dynamics and reasons why? For most of us though, it makes our brains hurt: We say, "My conclusions could be wrong and then I'd look dumb. Or people may disagree, and then I'd be ostracized."

Look at Rush or Arnie and the response of true-identifying-believers: Patting someone on the head and bringing them a covered dish is easier than wrestling with working consistent ideas that accommodate drug addiction or serially groping women.

In a way, the old "Love the sinner, hate the sin" construct is at work. But following the theme that ideas are abstract, it's far easier on the ego and the faculties to just declare yourself a sinner, buy someone else's laminated list of predetermined "sins", and get on witht the *fun* part: belonging to a group of people. In a way, for certain parts of the humanity, specifics of ideology is the icing on the cake. A repeated and general and vague affirmation of the general principle of US versus THEM is what they worry about most, because it secures their cake--group membership, and the security blanket it offers in an increasingly fluid world--most effectively.

Okay. Enough talk, I love role plays.

Know your audience. An example.

For righteous people, personal inconsistency is the secret weapon. There's a tremendous amount of cherrypicking that goes on when it comes time for evangelicals to dole out their outrage. A la carte Pauls, many. I referenced evangelical firm, Barna Research on this blog back in February. Here's an example of their findings....

*Born again Christians are just as likely to get divorced as are non-born again adults. Overall, 33% of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults.

If you click through to Barna, you'll find all kinds of neato facts: Such as, Massachussets Liberals walk the talk of the sacred commitment of marriage better than evangelicals. Tell me again, who is it we're protecting marriage from?

I don't ask that question to just make a snarky point, but to point out the above mentioned inconsistency vulnerability. But. BUT. In order to be heard, you must frame your message in the vernacular, otherwise your only audience will be you, and bats and dogs.

Use the words they would use, but use them first. Take gay marriage, the reason this election went south in more ways than one...

Demonstrate: that if you (evangelicals) are going to cleave the country in two, then many of your most active allies will be "left behind", so to speak, because, as we have learned all too well of late, the mirror has two faces. The "demons" you choose to so paint also have (R) after their name. They go to your churches, they live under your family roof. They are your friends, they are your children, your brothers and sisters, they are the family of Man. Imperfect, as God intended. Living together, as God made them to be. If man's words and laws made life the idyll you imagine, then we would have all been sipping ambrosia since birth.

Visualize: Faces of families, gay and otherwise, young and old, large and small, each with members disappeared from screen. "These are the enemy of God?"

Ask: If man and woman are God's creations, who are we to arrogantly divide--by impecfect, human, political means--that which he has, inexplicably to some, placed on this earth to live together. Love, commitment, sacrifice, all the ingredients are there. Suddenly these are less than virtuous?

Say: This is not a new challenge. It is an ages old conundrum. But if you deign to take matters into to your own hands merely to serve your modernistic, earthly impatience at not understanding His plan, then what do you get? Who is to say, but we know what we've been told: He who troubles his own house, shall inherit the wind.

God has told us we can do better than that. But only together. And only if we truly will try. Now go. In peace. And be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only.

### end translation/demo ###

Democratic values are not absent, nor are they broken. There are, however, horribly represented when you limit their discussion to sterile leagalistic concepts and inert words devoid of universal ideals. You cannot credibly call misguided faith to account without using the words of faith any more than you will reassure and persuade a CEO by asking "What's a balance sheet?"

FYI: The meat of the above moral-speak wasn't written in response to this election result, but as strategic assessment/advice posted, also in Feb, to MetaJournalism,