The essence of Kerry's remarks were, of course, welcomed by the obedient media, many of whom rarely could find fault with this president and others who are anxious to avoid crossing this notoriously vindictive administration. The majors' TV anchors promptly cajoled the public to "come together as one people." Richard Cohen, a generally liberal voice, admonished his readers against labeling Bush voters as "dupes" since "these people know exactly what they are doing and why." Even the Daily Camera's editorial page recently cautioned (presumably Democrats) that "they'll remain losers...if they treat their opponents as morons to be ridiculed instead of persuaded."
This magnanimous sounding advice may resonate with Republicans, but an even cursory review of the precarious present state of the U.S., domestically, internationally and economically, strongly suggests that by conceding to their agenda, tacitly or overtly, America is neither made safer nor are Democrats likely ever to be winners. Americans have rarely been so divided as we are now; we are hated almost universally abroad; and though rarely admitted, we are already virtually bankrupt in terms of present and future financial commitments and, by the minute, heading deeper into a fiscal abyss.
How do you 'persuade' half of the electorate, a third of whom believe to this day that WMD were found in Iraq; 70% of whom believe that Saddam Hussein cooperated with al Qaida; and more than a third who believe that the majority of world opinion supported the U.S. invasion? An Associated Press poll asked respondents what election issue was most important to them individually. The eighty percent that voted for Bush ranked moral values highest (22%), followed by terrorism (19%) (but Bush voters also discounted the importance of the Iraq war, on face value a seemingly strange contradiction). Kerry voters gave the economy, jobs and the war (unfavorable) as their highest priorities.
The two issues of prime importance to Bush voters, moral values and terrorism should be examined separately and jointly. In this part we confront the former.
On moral values: It is fair to say that most post-adolescent individuals of every political-religious stripe, have acquired a sense of morality, peculiar to their heredity and culture. For most contemplative persons morality spans the full spectrum of human behavior. Unfortunately, the American evangelical movement seems to have focused primarily on human sexuality in all of its forms and ramifications as the sole encompassing context with which to gauge moral rectitude, virtually to the exclusion of all other behavioral traits.
Human sexuality in all of its manifestations is clearly a consequence of our biologic evolution, another verity that evangelists abhor. It is neither an evil to be shunned nor a snare concocted by a watchful and vindictive god to trap the unrighteous. Evangelists have singled out homosexuality (including its corollary gay marriage) and abortion as particularly reprehensible practices fomented by the liberal establishment.
Progressives do not view these in that baleful light, since homosexuality is inherent in certain individals (and not a matter of choice), and, abortion, though not a happy consequence, is a sometime answer to a dreadful choice that befalls the unfortunate woman. She must make the decision whether to continue the pregnancy or consider the possible adverse consequences regarding her health, the viability of the fetus and its prospects for a full and productive life, her destitute economic condition, her inability to raise another child or perhaps the fact that the pregancy was the result of force.
Of course sexual morality is an important ingredient in the broad landscape that constitutes human ethics. Mutual respect between the sexes and dedication to one's chosen partner contributes mightily to familial and societal stability, but these qualities are not the summation nor are they necessarily even the core principle of civilization. Progressives place the harmonious interaction with other humans and with the natural environment on a higher plan. We are concerned with the well being of all life on earth in the present and into the foreseeable future. In our view the aim of our brief existence should be to promote the ability of humans to pursue happiness free from want and free from fear (to quote a famous Democratic president).
Consider the obverse of morality: immorality. Leaving aside the extreme immorality of killing thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens in an unprovoked war, how does the socio-conservative movement justify the socio-fiscal ramifications of this president's domestic policies? Isn't it immoral to transfer our gigantic and growing debt to our children and their children so that this generation can enjoy an artificially low tax burden? Isn't it immoral to convert a workable progressive tax system based on income to a regressive system based on consumption that falls most heavily on the poor? Isn't it immoral to privatize the present safety net designed to safeguard and sustain the middle and lower classes past their working years? Can you imagine an eighty-five year old widow, poorly educated and in ill-health, who hardly comprehends the meaning of equity trading, trying to eke out her sole source of income by playing the market?
The resounding success of the Republican's electoral victory does not grant them the prerogative of rescinding decades of social progress in the name of compassionate conservatism while, at the same time, attempting to commandeer traditional Democratic benchmarks such as Social Security and remake them as if they were Republican inventions. Their reasons for now embracing programs which they once fought tooth and nail when they were first introduced by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression, may have more to do with the fact that such programs are extraordinarily popular in America today, and not because, uncharacteristically, they fit into a grand Republican scheme for social uplift.
Those of us who lost the election do not need to pledge fealty to those who won. Contrary to Cohen's reproof that the majority knew what is was doing, the part of Lincoln's dictum that states "..you can fool part of the people all of the time..", is more on target, particularly if what they wish to believe conforms with what the government would like them to believe and accords their spiritual convictions.
Howard Garcia is a retired Boulder physicist