Have Religious Voters Blinded Us From Real Politics?
By rory weeks Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Heather Mac Donald writing for the USA TODAY's weekly op-ed column on religion (Conservatism doesn't need God, October 23, 2006; A13) was completely correct. Her article identified that 22% of voters in the 2004 presidential election held "moral values" as the most important factor in voting – the highest percentage of any single category. Of this group nearly 90% voted for President Bush. What lesson did the political parties take away from this election? That what Americans need is more God in our politics.
Since 2004 there has been a surge from members of congress, on both sides of the aisle, expressing religious tendencies. I have no problem with people espousing their religious beliefs. If these beliefs form the basis of their political agendas and I disagree with them, it is my obligation as a citizen to vote against them. However, what I do object to is the relationship of faith with conservatism. The media often uses these words as though they were interchangeable, when in fact there are many staunch conservatives who are either agnostic or atheistic. This is because politics and religion need not go hand in hand.
To equate the 'Christian Right' to conservatism and claim that within this group lays the embodiment of conservatism would be tantamount to claiming that 'Labor Unions' were synonymous with liberalism. While there is little doubt that members of the 'Christian Right' support overwhelmingly conservative candidates (the reverse holds for 'Labor Unions'), the fact remains that conservatism is concerned with more than 'moral values' policies. Yet in the age of uniformed, single issue voter, campaigning on actual platform policies has taken a back seat to 30-second commercials and sound-bites which hopefully highlight all of the single issue 'hot-buttons' on which voters concentrate.
Now that the role of 'moral values' voters has been established both parties are trotting out a clichéd line-up of statements hoping to sway these voters – and it might work. With both candidates declaring a religious background, the single issue 'moral values' voter has to undertake a greater level of political research to find a suitable candidate. It is at this point that the process becomes difficult. How is a 'moral values' voter to be able to tell the candidates apart without more research? Quite simply they can't, a point no political advisor has misunderstood.
The sudden reincorporation of religion into politics is dangerous. Our founding fathers resisted the simple path of incorporating God into the Constitution; in spite of the fact, he had been placed consciously in the Declaration of Independence and many of the colonial laws of the day. The fact that the founders sought to keep religion and politics separate is indicative of what has made this country great throughout the centuries. While I do not suggest that to be a political leader one must be devoid of religious ideals, it is inherent that these ideals only temper our government and not guide it. The balance is delicate as divorcing a man from his religion is next to impossible. However, we need not let the religious associations our leaders pigeon-hole them as either conservative or liberal.
What this country needs more than anything are leaders concerned with actual political discourse and policy. The fact remains that 'moral values' voters are for real. With almost a quarter of the electorate, they have tremendous voting power and deserve equal representation. However, by focusing a campaign only on 'moral value' hot-button issues, the candidate does not begin to provide potential answers the other vexing issues. This is not the way that a democratic republic is to operate.
As 'moral' Americans we should require more from our leaders than simply a statement of faith or belief. What we must require of them, in this and subsequent elections, are answers to the vexing questions of national security, the economy, education, welfare reform, healthcare reform, and immigration. Moral values voters owe it to the other three-quarters of the electorate to educate themselves about these issues. Whether they approach them from a religious paradigm or not, we must all require answers. While pandering to 'moral values' voters may ensure election, avoiding these problems will not make them go away.
For those 'moral values' voters who would like to see America turned into a theocracy remember that the last time the world had one people got burned at the stake. Liberty demands toleration, and no majority, no matter how great, may ever deprive a liberated minority of liberty as long as freedom is to remain. Only by demanding real political discourse will politicians, once again, move outside of the religious realm and return to politics.
America is one of the most religious countries in the world - certainly in the Western World, and, yes, we mix religion and politics. Playing with percentages of how many religious voters there are is not a good idea, either, because of where they're concentrated. The South, clearly, is a bastion of religious conservatism and ignoring down there is simply to write the region off. The MidWest also is heavily influenced by religious conservatism.
Consider that one of the main reasons that the Democratic Party's hold on African-Americans is slipping because the Dems ignore the religious values of these voters. This is creating apathy of support for Dems, similar to what we're seeing in the Maryland Senate race and elsewhere. John Kerry's announcement in 2004 that he would talk less about God if he were President and his general disrespect for religion helped seal his defeat, in spite of the fact that President Bush was on the ropes in many way.
In summary, religious conservative voters have played a huge role in the fact that there is a Republican majority today.
a much abler exponent can be found at www.theamericanscene.com. If you really think there is any major voting block in this country that wants to see a theocracy you're a. irrational and b. reading too much Kevin Phillips. What people want is greater involvement of moral and religious precepts in the public sphere, certainly nothing new and something that has been advocated, variously, by everyone from the founders of the Grand Old Party to left wing populist William Jennings Bryan.
Can be found here .
You go on ahead there, newbie, with your notions of God and Conservatism...the rest of us "kook fringe whackos" are quite comfortable in framing our lives and our humanity and our Nation around the pretext of knowing there is a higher power, and that no system of governance nor or any of its leaders theroeof will ever be allowed to be considered equal to, or an adequate replacement of it...
A little humility in the face of "Nature's God" goes a long way in the Democracy our founders had in mind.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
"For those 'moral values' voters who would like to see America turned into a theocracy remember that the last time the world had one people got burned at the stake."
Wow.
"Our founding fathers resisted the simple path of incorporating God into the Constitution; in spite of the fact, he had been placed consciously in the Declaration of Independence and many of the colonial laws of the day. The fact that the founders sought to keep religion and politics separate is indicative of what has made this country great throughout the centuries."
Double Wow.
"To equate the 'Christian Right' to conservatism and claim that within this group lays the embodiment of conservatism would be tantamount to claiming that 'Labor Unions' were synonymous with liberalism."
I think two "wows" are my limit.
You joined RS, apparently, less than an hour before I'm posting this response to your diary. Quite an interesting introduction to your way of thought and your familiarity with Conservativism.
I couldn't disagree with you more, by the way.
Understand, I'm not talking here about your diatribe on how Conservatives don't "need" Christians -- that isn't the part that caught my attention. It was, instead, the misunderstanding about Christianity, the Christian Right, the attitudes of the founding fathers toward religion and politics and all of the rest that I find interesting in one who claims (by innuendo, at least) to be a Conservative.
Plus, of course, there is the fact that your third statement I quoted above betrays a rather simplistic knowledge of the U.S. Conservative "movement," since theocons are quite distinct from neocons, paleocons, and those who simply think of themselves as fiscal and/or social conservatives.
I'm not sure if you are simply trolling and trying to stir up a fight, shilling for the MacDonald op-ed or a follow-up, or if you just have a chip on your shoulder about Christianity...but whatever reason you had for posting this fascinating little piece, there's not a lot more I can say about it, or about your idea of "real politics."