Enough of this "Moral Issues" Nonsense!

[Niles Caulder]

Finally, I dug up some documention to back up this hunch.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15598_1.html

David Brooks reiteritated this point tonight on McNeil/Lehrer.

You know this 3-day long tirade on "moral values" being the cause of Bush's victory on Tuesday...that notorious 20% of voters who cited 'moral issues' being the primary reason they showed up to the polls?  Have YOU been inundated with TV footage of beer-bellied rednecks at NASCAR races reminding you that the Civil War never ended?

Well, boys and girls...that's the media:  that's what they report because it's what they understand.  But it ain't true.

The proportion of evangelical Christian voters in this historic turnout was no greater than in the past.

Really.

The issues that the Religous Right champion such as prohibiting abortion and gay marriage had NO greater support among this electoral turnout that in the past.

Really.

There was a raw increase in numbers of these people, but it was no better than proportional.  The true relative increases in the support for Bush were in a) solidifying his hold [i.e. increasing turnout] in his base demographics, b) improving his performance among women, hispanics, and Catholics.

a) offset the mirror effort of the Democratic side.

b) won him the election.

The Swing Vote decided this election, as always.  It didn't decide on tired old B.S. issues like the hysterical media would have you believe.

Really.

[Nym90]

Good point. Both bases were energized like they never have been before, hence the record turnout. Many swing voters had a false impression that Kerry was "weak" on terrorism and didn't care about defending America. The Republicans did a very effective job placing a caricature of what Kerry really was into the minds of the voters. The Democrats did a bad job of correcting this.

Fear trumps hope everytime.

Conservatives condemn countries like Spain for voting out of fear after the terrorist attacks there, but Americans voted out of exaggerated fear, too. And for all that swing voters like to claim that they don't like false negative attacks, they often believe them; that's why politicians keep using them.

[J. J.]

The Republicans did a very effective job placing a caricature of what Kerry really was into the minds of the voters. The Democrats did a bad job of correcting this.

Kerry didn't need any help.  His statements and his lack of a solidly laid out policy on security left that impression.  I couldn't get Domocrats here to explain it in detail.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That Ohio gay marriage amendment killed Kerry

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I know for a fact that Evangelical turnout soared in OH, WV and PA

[dazzleman]

The issue is more complicated than religion and moral values, though these things play a part.

The Democrats are largely perceived to represent weakening moral values and outright hostility to Christianity, which is the religion, to one degree or another, of 90% of Americans.

Gay marriage is just a part of this.  The perception is that the secularists, who are an increasing part of the Democratic base, hold Christians in contempt and wish to eradicate any Christian influence from society, and replace it with their own secular religion.  And make no mistake about it - to the secularists, the various strains of political correctness to which they subscribe ARE their religion.

The battle between Democrats and Republicans is coming down to a battle between two opposing religions, for the soul of America.

Americans with more traditional values believe that while we don't have an official religion, our whole system of government and society is implictly based upon Judeo-Christian values, and that it is highly dangerous to eradicate these, as the secularists propose to do.  I am not an "evangelical Christian" but I do agree with this traditional values argument.

The ironic thing is that there is not a huge difference, at least at the red state-blue state level, in the way people live.  As an example, states with a high percentage of evangelical Christians have rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, etc. that are as high as, or in some case higher than, some of the "Godless" liberal states.  However, if you analyzed the behavior and lifestyles of individual voters, you would probably find that regardless of the state one lives in, there is a difference in lifestyle between largely Republican voters and largely Democratic voters.

The Democrats need to realize that they have placed themselves on the wrong side of the cultural/values divide, and gay marriage is only a small part of it.  This is not a new problem; I perceived it 15 years ago, and it had already been around for a while then.  What would really help the Democrats would be a toning down of the outright hostility toward Christian beliefs that some in the Democratic base have shown.

[Nym90]

The issue is more complicated than religion and moral values, though these things play a part.

The Democrats are largely perceived to represent weakening moral values and outright hostility to Christianity, which is the religion, to one degree or another, of 90% of Americans.

Gay marriage is just a part of this.  The perception is that the secularists, who are an increasing part of the Democratic base, hold Christians in contempt and wish to eradicate any Christian influence from society, and replace it with their own secular religion.  And make no mistake about it - to the secularists, the various strains of political correctness to which they subscribe ARE their religion.

The battle between Democrats and Republicans is coming down to a battle between two opposing religions, for the soul of America.

Americans with more traditional values believe that while we don't have an official religion, our whole system of government and society is implictly based upon Judeo-Christian values, and that it is highly dangerous to eradicate these, as the secularists propose to do.  I am not an "evangelical Christian" but I do agree with this traditional values argument.

The ironic thing is that there is not a huge difference, at least at the red state-blue state level, in the way people live.  As an example, states with a high percentage of evangelical Christians have rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, etc. that are as high as, or in some case higher than, some of the "Godless" liberal states.  However, if you analyzed the behavior and lifestyles of individual voters, you would probably find that regardless of the state one lives in, there is a difference in lifestyle between largely Republican voters and largely Democratic voters.

The Democrats need to realize that they have placed themselves on the wrong side of the cultural/values divide, and gay marriage is only a small part of it.  This is not a new problem; I perceived it 15 years ago, and it had already been around for a while then.  What would really help the Democrats would be a toning down of the outright hostility toward Christian beliefs that some in the Democratic base have shown.

I agree that Democrats need to reject hatred of Christianity. The vast majority of Democrats don't support this, but the misperception is definitely a problem.

I guess I just don't see how gay marriage threatens anyone, however. It is merely an acknowledgement that all people are equal, and since homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and it doesn't hurt anyone else who isn't homosexual, I fail to see how granting these people equal rights is bad for society.

If anything, gay marriage will improve moral values by making it more likely for gay people to engage in monogamous relationships. It is in society's best interests to promote monogamy, and that's why we give special benefits for married couples. Does it not also make sense to promote monogamy within homosexuals as well?

So once again, as I've said about many issues, it goes both ways. I agree with your points, but Republicans have to realize that not all traditions are good. It may be a traditional moral value that homosexuals are condemned and treated with scorn and contempt, and not given equal rights, but I don't feel that is a tradition that fits with traditional American ideals of social justice and allowing people liberty and pursuit of happiness so long as it does not harm others.

[© tweed]

The only moral values that matter are social issues.

You can't get abortions
You can't marry

What about?

You can't steal
You can't cheat

Those moral values didn't seem to matter Nov 7-Dec 13 2000.

[dazzleman]

I agree that Democrats need to reject hatred of Christianity. The vast majority of Democrats don't support this, but the misperception is definitely a problem.

I guess I just don't see how gay marriage threatens anyone, however. It is merely an acknowledgement that all people are equal, and since homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and it doesn't hurt anyone else who isn't homosexual, I fail to see how granting these people equal rights is bad for society.

If anything, gay marriage will improve moral values by making it more likely for gay people to engage in monogamous relationships. It is in society's best interests to promote monogamy, and that's why we give special benefits for married couples. Does it not also make sense to promote monogamy within homosexuals as well?

So once again, as I've said about many issues, it goes both ways. I agree with your points, but Republicans have to realize that not all traditions are good. It may be a traditional moral value that homosexuals are condemned and treated with scorn and contempt, and not given equal rights, but I don't feel that is a tradition that fits with traditional American ideals of social justice and allowing people liberty and pursuit of happiness so long as it does not harm others.

The problem for the Democrats is that they have been defined by their extremists.

Personally, I am ambivalent about gay marriage.  I don't believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice for most people, but to me the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman is so firmly entrenched that I can't think of a gay relationship as marriage.  I know several gay couples, some very close friends and relatives, but I can't say that I consider their relationships to be marriages.  To me, the term "marriage" is reserved for an intimate relationship between a man and a woman, and gay relationships may have some of the characteristics of marriages, but I define them as something else.

I think that the push for gay marriage is premature, and that the advocates of gay marriage are taking the wrong approach by trying to push it through the courts.  Social activists have been making this mistake ever since the civil rights movement.  This approach worked initially for the civil rights movement, with the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, but even there, the most durable gains came through the legislative process, not the courts.  The reality is that anything that the civil rights movement got through the courts (such as school integration) has largely evaporated, but what they got through the legislative process (integration of public facilities and voting rights) has endured.  

Based upon the margins by which the gay marriage bans passed in those 11 states, the public is clearly not ready for gay marriage, and attempting to get it through the courts may achieve tactical success in certain places, but it will never be durable if achieved that way, just as Roe vs. Wade is not durable.

The Democrats became identified with the push for gay marriage, but it was not this issue alone that has made the Democrats unpalatable to many in middle America.  It is a whole pattern of things, of which this is just a reinforcement.  The Democratic elite's protrayal of Christians as backward rednecks has really hurt the party in middle America.  It plays great in the salons of Manhattan and San Francisco, but not so well outside those areas.  The fact is, some religious zealots are over the top, but that doesn't mean that Christians in general are bad.  And the Democratic Party has its own version of backward rednecks and ignoramuses.  I have read some commentary on the election results from liberals, and their disdain for middle America is so clear, and very disturbing.

Each party has its extremists, and the job is to keep the extremists in the camp, because their votes are needed, without allowing them to be too visible, and to define the party.  The primary process has made it a lot harder to do this.  If the party bosses had more influence, they may have nominated someone like Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh, rather than John Kerry.  But it's hard to get a moderate through the primary process, since the primary voters are generally the most partisan voters.  Republicans have a similar problem, but they contained it better this election cycle.  What comes next is anyone's guess.

[Democratic Hawk]

When Bill Kristol was talking about the importance of moral issues in the election to Jeremy Paxman on BBC2 Newsnight, Paxman looked at him as though he had two heads. Then later on Fox, US comentators should their heads in bewilderment

For what it's worth, moral issues are between me, my conscience and not the ballot box.

For example, I'm anti-abortion but that does not give me the right to impose my will on others.

Dave

[opebo]

Even though the percentage of 'fundamentalist Christians' may not have been greater than before, the percentage of Americans whos' vote was motivated by the fundamentalist's style of hatred was much larger.  This makes me question the definition of 'fundamentalist'.  I suspect that in fact a large majority of americans both believe in god and are hateful bigots.

[DaleC76]

This issue is a great argument in favor of separation of church and state.  I don't believe this country is bigoted toward homosexuals.  I don't think there are that many who hate them (although I don't dispute that some do).  The vast majority don't care what people do in their private lives.

If the measures on the ballot were to prevent gays from... driving, for example,  they would all be laughed down.  The difference here is that for most poeple, marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, performed in churches, by pastors.  The government really shouldn't be involved in any of it.

Homosexuals get married everyday in this country. Despite what pundits say about Christians, many churches perform gay weddings. In fact, I would say that most Protestant churches will do them (Methodists, Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Pentacostals... I think all these denominations have approved of 'blessing' homosexual relationships in marriage ceremonies).  It's just that they don't get the government's stamp of approval.

Homsexual marriages should not be recognized by the government.  Neither, however, should heterosexual unions.  Let people do what they want, without the government's permission or interference.  All the tax and legal stuff can be reworded to make it work.  It would take a little effort, but it would help ease a lot of minds and make for better campaigns with more of a focus on the important issues.

The same goes for poligamy, which can be a religious issue too.  A man shouldn't go to jail  for living with two women (even if he might want to ), but he shouldn't get tax bonuses for it, either.

The root of the problem is the government being too involved in private lives.  The very thought of having to pay a government fee to go through a religious ceremony boils my blood...

[Niles Caulder]

I know for a fact that Evangelical turnout soared in OH, WV and PA

It soared in comparative quantities...but not in electorate share--just about everything soared to offset it.  That's the point I'm making.  Of that proportion, Bush's share increased as well, and that's surely significant.  But to say that the nation decided this election on 'moral issues' like the media is portraying it is erroneous.  These evangelical sorts were counterbalanced by the equally remarkable increased quantities of Kerry supporters (some of whom were no doubt voting on the same 'moral issues,' just on the opposing side.)

Ohio: rustbelt, hardest hit economically, hemoraging jobs.  Religion doesn't get Republicans elected under these circumstances.  Although I disagree with some of Nym's comments---Ohio voted to show its endurance and pain tolerance for the sake of Wartime communication to the world.

[Niles Caulder]

Fear does not always outperform hope.  1992 was proof positive.  It's a matter of whichever is made to be more Believable.

I have to agree with JJ on this one.  The Republicans were of course responsible for the active effort of characterization.  But they weren't responsible for the ammunition given to them by their own opponent.  To what extent do we say "The Democrats did a bad job of correcting it" over "It was really correct to some degree"  ?

Religious Demographics are on the side of the Democrats.  Add time to trends, and religion becomes a Democratic advantage.  Make no mistake, the South is transforming and becoming infested with all the religious elements that the Religious Right fear most.  It's foolish to judge American culture based on the timing of its election cycles.

As things progress, the South will continue to be the bastion of 'Old Fashioned' Theology...but it's already in seige mode...and has been for a long time.  Urbanite liberals wish they could wiggle their noses and enlighten them overnight by preaching their own futuristic vision...but that's not how it works.  Mostly, you wait until old people die, and young people age enough to get a grip and start voting.

[opebo]

Fear does not always outperform hope.  1992 was proof positive.  It's a matter of whichever is made to be more Believable.

I have to agree with JJ on this one.  The Republicans were of course responsible for the active effort of characterization.  But they weren't responsible for the ammunition given to them by their own opponent.  To what extent do we say "The Democrats did a bad job of correcting it" over "It was really correct to some degree"  ?

Religious Demographics are on the side of the Democrats.  Add time to trends, and religion becomes a Democratic advantage.  Make no mistake, the South is transforming and becoming infested with all the religious elements that the Religious Right fear most.  It's foolish to judge American culture based on the timing of its election cycles.

As things progress, the South will continue to be the bastion of 'Old Fashioned' Theology...but it's already in seige mode...and has been for a long time.  Urbanite liberals wish they could wiggle their noses and enlighten them overnight by preaching their own futuristic vision...but that's not how it works.  Mostly, you wait until old people die, and young people age enough to get a grip and start voting.

Thanks, Niles Caulder, this is the most hopeful post I've read in a long while.

On the other hand I'm not entirely convinced the trend is away from relgion.  I hope you're right.

[Niles Caulder]

The trend is not as simple as "away from religion"

The trend is towards "religious pluralism."

The outer-rim of secularists have increased to roughly 10% [from 2%] of the American population in the past two decades.

Self identified Christians as a whole have been declining from 90% to 80%.

Evangelical Prostestants have deteriorated below the 50% mark of the country just in this past year.

Buddhism and Islam are on a considerably verticle growth rate.