<p>Liz, again, read this thread - there is constant spoken and unspoken reference to how the "Christian right" somehow swung the election. Turn on CNN or ABC and watch the news reviews equating "moral values" with the "Christian right" - the emphasis is mostly on "Christian" The underlying message is that ALL "Christians" are somehow evil and un-American. </p>
<p>Even Patient saying that many Catholics are "Born again" signals a lack of knowledge about the Catholic faith that is stunning but hardly unusual (sorry Patient but it does). For example, take CNN's story that I mentioned before where they interviewed "evangelical" Christians about the election with the "gee whiz, these folks really DO exist" theme. They interviewed several "evangelical Christians" who voted for Bush. They then showed the bumper sticker of a women that said "Pray the rosary." This person was OBVIOUSLY a Catholic (born again Christians do not pray the rosary) but they didn't mention that - they just lumped her in with the "Born again" Christians (By the way, she voted for Kerry). There was no clarification that she was not "born again." I am sorry but if you had ASKED her, I would bet money she would not have identified as an "Evangelical Christian" but as a Roman Catholic. </p>
<p>But see, that's my point - all Christians are the SAME - they are ALL suspect, they are all radical fundamentalists, they are ALL Bush supporters, they are ALL against abortion, they are ALL against stem cell research, etc., etc., etc. In general, the media does not try to do any sort of reserach as to the vast difference in opinions out there among Christians. We are all just lumped together. As a Christian who is definitely NOT fundamentalist or even much to the "right", I find this very strange. You may not see it, but I do.</p>
<p>Well I do believe if the Christian right didn't show up at the polls Bush might not be elected because it wasn't exactly a landslide. I don't have any hard evidence on that.
I think Patient articulated quite well the fear some of us have that the "Christian right" will impose their beliefs on us. Their power is very real and they believe George Bush is their man, put in place by God.</p>
<p>Liz, I'm not arguing that there aren't elements in the "Christian right" who would like to impose their beliefs on us. But I'm just as convinced that their are elements in the
"anti-religious Left" who would like to impose their beliefs on us as well. BOTH scare me to death.</p>
<p>Liz, I grew up in New York and have lived in Southern California for the past 20 years.
I was raised Catholic, moved away from Catholicism in my 20's and returned to it in my early 40's after extensive reading and research about a wide assortment of religions and spiritual practices. Like many who were raised Catholic, I was surprised to learn that while I don't agree with all of the current directions and decisions of the Catholic CHURCH, I do agree with the underlying principles of the original Catholic RELIGION (I see these as two separate things).</p>
<p>Carolyn,
I have read parts of this thread and frankly I don't see it. Most articles I read and reports I see describe the "religious right" or evangelicals as just that and do not lump Christians all together. NO doubt , the Dems are more secular and progressively Christian but I don't think they want to impose their beliefs on you. What would their imposed beliefs look like. It's very obvious what the religious right's is. Take stem cell research. they think they are killing a life. What a crock! I get emotional about this one because as I mentioned time and again I have a son with type 1 diabetes and stem cell reasearch might be the key to him living a longer life. It is also the bigger implication of faith and God vs Science that disturbs me. Most freethinkers or secularists don't want to impose anything but a separation of church and state. That doesn't mean you can't have the faith of your choosing, it means you can't impose it on others politically as it seems the Christian right would like to.</p>
<p>I am a moderate and so is Bush, for different reasons. But the key issue for Bush is that if you look at his policies (not the rhetoric, and not the charges of the opposition, but what the policies are trying to do), then Bush is a big spending centrist, expanding government, expanding entitlements, and supporting affirmative action (look at the Michigan brief). These are left of center positions, for sure. Bush is also a strong proponent of the military, supports lower tax rates, and supports letting the most successful members of society keep what they have earned (or inherited), as opposed to a re-distibution policy of the Left.. Roughly speaking, these positions of Bush are right of center positions. The combination makes Bush a centrist moderate.</p>
<p>This is the problem for the Left, and by extension for the Democrats: Bush has co-opted the center, leaving the Democrats to try to popularize the unsuccessful policies of the far Left, as the only way to distinguish themselves from a centrist like Bush.</p>
<p>All of this discussion about Christians being the core of the moral values voters, and the reason that Kerry lost and Bush won, are just foolish clouds of smoke being discussed largely by the proponents of the philosophy of the Left, to shift the discussion away from the rejection that the Left receives from the electorate, and towards the Christian boogeyman. It is comforting to think that the Christian Right defeated the Left, because this position requires no re-thinking of policies and beliefs, no hard choices to abandon socialist policies long sought for...and it will lead nowhere the Democratic Party should want to go.</p>
<p>If a centrist "New Democratic Party" emerges without the baggage of the far Left, it will be able to re-capture the favor of the electorate by moving to the center. But the far Left re-distributionist element of the Democratic Party will have to be expelled first, including such stalwarts as Kennedy, Kerry and Schumer.</p>
<p>Funny thing, I just saw a guest on PBS last night saying that because their is less disparity between the two parties that the Republicans had to differentiate themselves on the religious/moral front. Of course its a theory just like yours. </p>
<p>I also don't think that the religious right is the ONLY reason Kerry lost. It's complex with no one dominating issue. The religious right might be the explanation of the day but it has validity in the big picture. As Emeraldkitty said, terrorism was the number one issue. But even that has all kinds of underlying arguments that require values and religion as part of the discussion.</p>
<p>Carolyn, funny enough I was educated in Catholic schools (right next to Mission San Luis Rey, as a matter of fact), and after having been raised an Episcopalian and finding Catholicism more appealing and frankly seductive, became a Catholic for a brief time in my 20s. I tried very hard to believe in Jesus Christ as God and an afterlife, but finally realized that I simply did not. I wish I were different but I would be living a lie to be going to church and praying to something in which I do not and cannot believe. I still believe that I live a moral life, that I do good in the community, that I am a good and loving parent. </p>
<p>I think that you are probably correct in a technical sense. I think I am using the terms too loosely in a way. However, for a time I was involved in a born-again church here in the Bay Area, and there were many practicing Catholics who were also attending that church because of the born-again aspects. I think that in fact there is a crossover, at least up here. Catholicism is a huge umbrella with a vast spectrum of people who consider themselves Catholics and yet really don't ascribe to much of what the Catholic Church would officially sanction. Clearly, there is some kind of vast movement in this country searching for personal religious experience of the divine and Catholics are among them. That's all I was saying and I'm sorry if I annoyed or offended you.</p>
<p>I am really annoyed with the claim that all moderates voted for Bush and that all who voted for Kerry are democrats, liberals, and leftists. I am an independent and if you looked at my ballot you would see that I voted for candidates that are democrats, republicans, and even a few libertarians. Also, for every ballot measure that I voted in a way that might be considered liberal, I voted on another the perceived conservative way. I make my decisions based on the specific candidates and issues; I hate the two party system.
I'm from Utah and ALL of my friends and family (who are old enough) are registered republicans. They are all, also, good, compassionate, rational, and intelligent. They are moderates. All but one of them (of those who divulged the info.) voted for Kerry. This is because they are generally fiscally conservative and, in true form to conservatism, believe government should have LESS control. For instance, banning gay marriage which is government infringing on personal lives more, not less. All of those people voted for Bush last time because they believed he would make sound fiscal decisions and that he would truly unify the nation. Instead, they feel he was fiscally irresponsible and that his social views are extreme and divisive.
My point is that no one can make generalized claims that all who voted for Kerry are democrats or all moderates voted for Bush. IT's just not true. None of us know a big enough percentage of voters in the US to make any such claims, and I'm sick of the claims.
SOme posters make good claims for Bush being a moderate. Once again, it's perception. I do not think someone who wants to do away with abortion, who wants to legislate against gay rights, who appoints a man to the FDA's reproductive health department that believes unwed women should not be allowed birth control is a moderate, I'm sorry.
I so agree with Liz and...I forgot his user name but he also expressed great fear in the religiousity of the far right. I just don't see how asking those who are religious to keep their religion out of publicly funded areas is in any way pushing our values on them. If you want to pray, even in school, then silently pray. If you want to display the ten commandments on the front lawn of your property, more power to you. If you want to get together and have bible classes after school or on weekends, go for it! I don't believe most of us that are strong supporters of separation of church and state are trying to push our believes on those who are religious. My spiritual beleifs are personal, and I choose to keep them to myself, though there is nothing wrong with like minded people worshipping together. I'm just trying to keep others from pushing their beleifs on me and my children. That's FREEDOM! Everybody has the right to live their lives the way the want as long as they respect the rights of others to choose differently.
I don't feel like the media portrayed the evangelical CHristians as unamerican. I just think that in analyzing the results, one theory was that many evangelicals who didn't vote last time did this time and that might have helped Bush. I don't see how that is putting down evangelicals.
OK, that was a multi-layered post in response to many previous posts.
OH ya, and Thane, the previously mentioned southern winner who thinks thsoe who conduct abortions should be put to death, he also thinks unwed mothers should not be allowed to teach in public schools. According to his logic, I would have been fired when I had my son, and I'm a good teacher.
I'm sorry, I just want my son to grow up in a country that defines "moral values" as respecting one another, accepting others differences, and not infringing on other's rights. Really, morality is as simple as respect...if we all respect one another and one another's rights, the world could be beautiful.</p>
<p>Frankly, I would have loved to see Kerry as a candidate of the Left. But I can't find a single position he has taken that would allow me to characterize him as such. And so he left seven million votes on the table. College students - many well to the left of him, and don't want to send MORE troops to Iraq (which was Kerry's position - to the right of Bush's.) Single women - many with children - who can't find health care coverage. Unemployed workers whose jobs have disappeared. Seven million voters who could hve been attracted to him if he had given them the chance.</p>
<p>Good post Grammy! I certainly did not mean to imply that all moderates voted for Bush...that would mean 48% of the electorate was Liberals! What I mean is that to a pluality of the voting public, Bush is a moderate. He straddles the left-right dividing line in the country, trinagulating (just like Clinton) to get a governing majority.</p>
<p>With Bush in the center, Democrats are out of luck. Now in 2008, if the D's run a centrist, and can keep the far left under control, they can win. but to do this they need to:</p>
<ol>
<li>Find a centrist candidate.</li>
<li>Change thier policies to reflect the candiadte's values.</li>
<li>Really believe in the change, because the voters can sniff it out when candidate say what the the voters want to hear, like Kerry did on Iraq and Gay Marriage.</li>
</ol>
<p>I have always thought of the United States as a country that was founded on the desire for religious tolerance and freedom from persecution for religious beliefs. </p>
<p>Also, this vast WWJD movement. What would Jesus do? He would give away his money to help the poor, for one thing. He would protect the disabled, the old, the sick. He would not wage war. Ah, but the religious right finds a way to explain away those discrepancies. Their Jesus would don a military uniform and pick off the terrorists with his gun, sock away his money in a private retirement account, and condemn those who perform abortions to death....interesting how Christianity is interpreted.</p>
<p>Look at what we are evolving into. I for one truly am thinking of taking my education, my money, and my beliefs to a more tolerant country. Even though Scandinavia is freezing and I hate cold weather....</p>
<p>Mini, Kerry was saying one thing (often in politcal code) but giving the impression to voters that he would do something else. Examples: raise taxes on only those with income over $200,000 per year, but spend as if five or six times as much money would come into the treasury. Send more troops to Iraq (what troops? We don't have them to send). Get the allies to send lots of troops, but the allies send a loud "NO" to this...and Kerry kept repeating it. Spend more on intelligence, but he voted the other way in the past. Build the military up, but he voted against the $87 Billion...I guess there is no need to repeat the entire election. Sorry.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that for those who thought it was Kerry's intent, it was easy to hear his words as a plan to raise taxes massively, cut and run in Iraq, shrink the military, expand entitlements such as medical insurance and drug insurance, subordinate our leadership to the elites of Europe, and impose radical environmental rules onto industry (starting with something of a Kyoto-compromise). These are positions of the Liberal left, IMHO. I certainly agree that Kerry said words during the campaign which would have refuted or at least ameliorated each of these fears, but...who did the voters beleive?</p>
<p>They did not beleive Kerry. They believed Bush.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that for those who thought it was Kerry's intent, it was easy to hear his words as a plan to raise taxes massively, cut and run in Iraq, shrink the military, expand entitlements such as medical insurance and drug insurance, subordinate our leadership to the elites of Europe, and impose radical environmental rules onto industry (starting with something of a Kyoto-compromise). </p>
<pre><code> Reasonabledad, I have a hunch that a lot of people who voted for Bush because of wanting to stay the course during this war on terrorism that he is waging would actually like to see a lot of those policies implemented. I still think that it is really hard to draw too many conclusions about what kind of cobbled-together majority Bush really got, and I guess that time will tell.
</code></pre>
<p>You may be right that in fact 51% of the country wants to stay in Iraq and then invade systematically all other non-democratic countries, cut taxes and spending on social programs, outlaw abortion and gay unions (of any sort, by the way), drill in Alaska and further endanger our planet, and enforce their religious beliefs by allowing less separation between church and state. Of course, in the process of doing all that, we will no longer be democratic either, but.....</p>
<p>It's too early to tell though if that is really what people were voting for, or something a bit more basic and elemental like an overriding fear of another terrorist attack and the feeling that since it hasn't happened since 9-11, Bush must be doing something right. I think we are going to see another one, far worse and more devastating, and of course I hope I'm wrong.</p>
<p>You see, I see Kerry as the guy who supported WTO and further globalization (the most environmentally devastating governmental action in history), as the guy who's answer the health care was to import drugs from Canada, who wants to increase the size of the military significantly and increase the number of troops in Iraq, who supported the death of 576,000 children in Iraq, caused by policies pursued by Bill Clinton, compared to which Bush's actions, on the global stage, are child's play, had no plans related to outsourcing, supported the Patriot Act. These are all CENTRIST positions. </p>
<p>But I can't fault anyone for not believing Kerry. I didn't. Most of the time, I couldn't even understand him.</p>
<p>I'm curious what kind of health coverage most of you have...anyone care to share. I'm assuming most of you are at some independent or home based business and that you have your own insurance or depend on a spouse for it. </p>
<p>I liked Kerry's plan. It was not perfect but it was a move in the right direction. I think it would be great to buy into the Senate health care plan. We pay $1000 a month and it just raised to $1200 a month. We are stuck with our high costs-can't get any other insurance because of pre-existing conditions . And a huge reason for the high costs is that we all cover the costs of that free health plan for the uninsured called the emergency room. It's a very expensive way to get coverage. Kerry wanted to cover some of those people.</p>