Political Values And Stem Cells

Dotty Lynch is the Senior Political Editor for CBS News. E-mail your questions and comments to Political Points

Answer: Values.

The question of how to talk about values has bedeviled the Democrats for years. Since the 2004 election, a consensus has developed among Democratic strategists that they need to do something about this. The problem is which values to pick and how to let people know they have them.

On the other hand, the Republicans may be suffering from an embarrassment of riches. They are now caught in a clash of values on stem cell research. The president and Tom DeLay are clear about where they stand on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines and why. Their position comes directly from religious values.

"I've made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life -- I'm against that. And therefore if the bill does that, I will veto it," President Bush said Friday.

Mr. Bush and DeLay stand with the U.S. Conference of Bishops, which has written to members of the House urging them to vote against the Castle-DeGette bill when it comes up next week, calling it "destructive and morally offensive."

However, many Republicans favor expanding stem cell research. Why? Because their values dictate that scientific research to cure disease and extend lives of people is a good thing. There are 25 Republican co-sponsors on this bill and prominent Republican Senators like Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter and former first lady Nancy Reagan have clearly spelled out their values, which mean more research.

The ad being run by the Republican Main Street Partnership, which is supporting the bill, is emotional and value laden. It features a 2-year-old boy afflicted with a debilitating disease which might be cured my stem cell research. "We have a moral obligation to look for ways to cure diseases like SMA" his father says.

Somewhere in the 1980s, Democrats decided voters saw them as marshmallows with bleeding hearts and decided that adopting sterile language would make them look tough. "Investing in human capital" replaced generations "having a rendezvous with destiny" and believing in "freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear." Elections were supposed to be about competence not ideology.

But in January of 2005 Democratic pollster Diane Feldman wrote a memo, "Winning," which said it was an ideology that Democrats were lacking and without one they were creating doubt in voter's minds about where they would take the country.

"Values is a catch-phrase," Feldmen told me in an e-mail this week "I think it is important to distinguish between personal values (going to church) and public values (like freedom of religion). The latter to me is really ideology, a word most avoid. We need to distinguish at least between values that do not necessarily translate into a public arena (I love my children) and those that do (we have a responsibility to children). An awful lot of the values talk is just that. The point, to me, is to be clear about what you believe in the public sphere."

Feldman's client, Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa is an example of a candidate who gets it. His statement on election night mixed a lot of personal values language with public action. He said he stood "in the embrace of my mother who emerged from an abusive marriage a stronger person ... and taught us everything there was to know about leadership" --thus translating his personal values into values about leadership and about policy.

Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and Mark Penn briefed reporters in Washington this week on their work for British Prime Minister Tony Blair. They said one of the reasons for his success in the recent election was how clearly he spelled out his values in terms of a strong reform agenda.

They agreed that the key to success for American politicians was articulating values. Penn's approach is to depart from Republicans by stressing secular values while showing respect for religious voters. He believes that Democrats must deal with worries over social decay. He noted that Bill Clinton's emphasis on crime and welfare reform was an example of a way to do this.

Greenberg said that candidates need to explain what is behind the positions they take. He doesn't think there needs to be a bright line between religious and non-religious values but rather a need to have the right values where ever they come from.

That may be key for the Republican on stem cell research. Both sides have clear values behind their policy choices. The voters will decide which are the right ones.