America is nearly two weeks removed from the presidential election, and while most of us have moved on, some Democrats are still fuming. Ignoring John Kerry's appeal to unite behind the president, liberals are now engaged in a scorched earth campaign of a different kind. The target this time is not really President Bush, but those darn "holy roller" Christians who dared to bring Jesus into the voting booth.
While exit polls are widely held in contempt due to their failure to predict the election's outcome, they revealed some figures that shocked the Democratic Party to its core. When asked what issues influenced their vote, a plurality, or 22 percent, of respondents said moral values influenced them. Of the voters who listed moral values, 80 percent of them voted for Bush, while only 18 percent went to Kerry. These figures could also help to account for the upsurge in support for Bush among African-Americans, the most religiously devout segment of our population. The uproar over these numbers spread like wildfire from the People's Republic of Berkeley to 4400 Massachusetts Ave.
Many pro-Kerry students told me they were shocked that morality played such a key role in the election. Browsing AOL profiles and having private conversations over dinner in TDR offered even more insight into the minds of some Democrats. The explanations included that the election was not decided on what mattered but on religious and social issues that only divide our country, and that Christians were just "elitist bastards" who voted selfishly. That's funny; I didn't know people in Kansas or New Mexico had to clear their vote with some kid in Letts Hall. If you ask me, the real elitists among us are the Democrats who think they have a right to declare a person's vote legitimate or not. After all, that is why they don't want issues like gay marriage decided at the polls, but in the courts. The Democrats know they can't win at the ballot box, so they go through the courts.
Just look at how morality played out on the national stage: All 11 states that had gay marriage bans on their ballots passed them, including Oregon. People who pulled the lever for Bush and Kerry also pulled a lever for traditional marriage. That is in stark contrast to liberal madam Maureen Dowd, who said of Bush and his voters, "they don't call our better angels; they summon our nasty devils." Apparently the country is not as divided over the issue as Dowd and the Left would have you believe.
The problem for the Democrats is not so much that they are incapable of having values, but that they are antagonistic toward religion and its role in society. Just watch the talk shows or read the liberal bible, The New York Times. These people are more afraid of Jerry Falwell than Osama bin Laden! Elected Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say their party could coopt the religious vote by painting poverty in biblical terms. Obama said moral values should include the immorality of 45 million people who are uninsured (a figure unchanged from when Bill Clinton first took office). Even Nancy Pelosi has suddenly found religion, spouting out excerpts of Matthew as if it were Pentecost.
What these Democrats fail to realize is that Bush does not have the support of the "Religious Right" because he talks about the Bible more than the Democrats (which is true). The president has their support because he is actually one of them, a God-fearing, regular attendee of church, not just a Creaster (Christmas and Easter) parishioner. He reads the Bible every day and not just when his speechwriters weave it into a speech. This may account for the liberals labeling him and other Christians as narrow-minded bigots. Could it be that these liberals are in fact intolerant and bigoted toward Christians, those people who dare cling to something higher than goverment?
The fact is, Bush has put forth effort to help the needy in our nation. The new Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives now allows religious groups to seek government funding to help out their fellow citizens in need. What the president said is true - government can give out money, but it can't heal a hurting heart. Just looking at the supposed "Great Society" should be proof enough that government is somewhat deficient at healing societal woes. If government would reach out (or dare I say "outsource") to religious groups, more could be done for our fellow man.
As a Christian who factored morality into my vote, I resent being labeled elitist, bigoted and misinformed. How could someone not be informed here at American University? Our three favorite pastimes are Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, for goodness sake! When I cast my vote, I looked at the candidates and saw in Bush a man who ordered his life the same as I did and had policies I agreed with. In Kerry, I saw someone hostile and a little condescending toward my views.
While no party has a monopoly on values, the Democratic Party has a hole it needs to start digging itself out of if it wants to win another election anytime soon. The Republicans did not divide the nation, but brought it together across party lines to stand firm on certain social issues. The Democrats polarized the electorate by aligning themselves with radical mayors and courts on the marriage issue.
By blaming Christians instead of themselves, the Democrats not only further alienate a powerful voting bloc, but seem content to repeat the same mistakes again instead of learning from them. Perhaps the Democrats should listen to one of Kerry's ads and get their heads out of the sand.
