Bass Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel speaks about morality in politics at the Harvard Book Store on Friday. His new book, “Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics,” was released on November 15.

Bass Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel discussed his new book “Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics” in front of a small gathering of students, faculty, and other community members at the Harvard Book Store last Friday.

The talk, which was part of the Friday Forum series organized by Harvard Book Store, took the form of a dialogue between Sandel, who teaches the popular undergraduate course Moral Reasoning 22, “Justice,” and Homi K. Bhabha, Rothenberg professor of English and American literature and language. Bhabha asked Sandel questions about the themes covered in Public Philosophy.

In the discussion, Sandel emphasized the importance of not only statecraft—the role of government—in public life, but also “soulcraft,” defined as inculcating citizens with a sense of collective civic purpose through framing politics in moral terms.

Whereas the Republicans have tried to combine the two, Sandel said that Democrats have largely avoided the issue.

“For the most part conservatives talk about morality and soulcraft in politics,” said Sandel, who added that Democrats have ceded the discussion of moral values to Republicans since the Reagan presidency.

Sandel said that because this long-term trend , Democratic candidates have been largely unsuccessful in elections.

He noted that of all the Democratic presidential candidates since Johnson, only two have been elected, Carter and Clinton. Both men used “moral and spiritual language to knit together a compelling story” while other candidates failed to invoke morality effectively and seemed technocratic, he said.

Sandel then discussed how framing politics in terms of a common ethic responsibility can take the form of patriotism. He noted, however, that currently both conservatives and liberals have failed to foster the right kind of uplifting constructive patriotism.

Sandel said that the patriotism promoted by the Republicans since 9/11 is a “patriotism not of joy or even inspiration, but of fear.” When President Bush responded to the public “yearning for a common purpose” after 9/11 by encouraging them to maintain the economy by going shopping, Republicans were unable to channel such patriotism toward a constructive common purpose, he said.

Sandel noted, however, that Democrats were remiss as well, since they missed an extraordinary opportunity to cast their agenda in a moral light—one that would detail what Americans could do to help their country.

Bhabha asked Sandel about how to create a common moral vision that reflects the diversity of society.

Sandel said that respecting pluralism was essential and that a public philosophy “that engages differences” is preferable to one that “floats above moral and religious differences.”

He cited the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Gacaca tribunals in South Africa and Rwanda as examples of successful efforts to reconcile communal differences in society.

Sandel’s discussion of creating a progressive public philosophy received supportive reviews from members of the audience.

“What appealed to me was creating a narrative to support our Democratic policies,” said Melissa L. Dunseath, a graduate student at Emerson College. “There is a story already there but someone needs to weave it together.”

“I especially liked the fact that even Democrats can bring an over-arching vision and moral fiber to their politics as opposed to simply having disparate policy proposals,” said Vivek Viswanathan ’09, who is taking “Justice.”