It's the Values, Stupid
20 years ago at MacArthur High School, several of us were assigned an exercise in History class to split into teams and argue for and against the policies of Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. I know Tom and I were part of the Mondale team. I can't remember everyone else who participated, but I remember Lisa Carol was on the Reagan team.
Tom and I laid out strong arguments in favor of Mondale and the Democrats on everything from the economy to our country's intervention in Nicaragua. We felt like we had won every debate point going into the final argument by Lisa Carol.
Lisa never mentioned the names of Reagan or Mondale. She never mentioned either of the political parties. All she did was read a passage about what happens in a late-term abortion when an unborn fetus is scraped out of a uterus. While she was reading that passage, she held up a large photo of an unborn fetus that had been scraped out of a uterus.
Half the class was in tears. The other half was furious.
"What does this have to do with electing a President?" I thought to myself.
At the end of Lisa's presentation, our teacher (can't remember her name) declared the Reagan team a winner. I remember Tom and I and others being very angry about the teacher's decision.
20 years later, I still have not learned that valuable lesson in politics that Lisa Carol was trying to teach me in 1984.
This election was not about the economy, the environment, health care or the War in Iraq.
It was about abortion, gay marriages and God.
"Moral Values" was listed as the 2nd Most Important Issue for voters in exit polls and it was the Most Important Issue for women voters.
If that is how we are going to elect Presidents from now on, it will be interesting to see whether Democrats try to adjust by going even further to the right, or taking a stronger stand on the left to differentiate themselves.
Tom and I laid out strong arguments in favor of Mondale and the Democrats on everything from the economy to our country's intervention in Nicaragua. We felt like we had won every debate point going into the final argument by Lisa Carol.
Lisa never mentioned the names of Reagan or Mondale. She never mentioned either of the political parties. All she did was read a passage about what happens in a late-term abortion when an unborn fetus is scraped out of a uterus. While she was reading that passage, she held up a large photo of an unborn fetus that had been scraped out of a uterus.
Half the class was in tears. The other half was furious.
"What does this have to do with electing a President?" I thought to myself.
At the end of Lisa's presentation, our teacher (can't remember her name) declared the Reagan team a winner. I remember Tom and I and others being very angry about the teacher's decision.
20 years later, I still have not learned that valuable lesson in politics that Lisa Carol was trying to teach me in 1984.
This election was not about the economy, the environment, health care or the War in Iraq.
It was about abortion, gay marriages and God.
"Moral Values" was listed as the 2nd Most Important Issue for voters in exit polls and it was the Most Important Issue for women voters.
If that is how we are going to elect Presidents from now on, it will be interesting to see whether Democrats try to adjust by going even further to the right, or taking a stronger stand on the left to differentiate themselves.
posted by cvo @ 1:45 PM
5 Comments:
At 6:16 PM,
R said…
I more or less share a similar sentiment. But I also saw exit polls that showed, when voters were asked about abortion and gay marriage, something like 35% said never, 35% said sometimes/civil unions, and 30% said always/yes. Whatever the numbers were, over half were in favor of some form of abortion and recognition of same-sex couples. If the polls were accurate, then enough of the moderates must have been convinced that Kerry and the Democrats were lying (or not serious anyway) when they claimed to share the same moderate views. Give the Republican Party credit for successfully selling the idea that God wants us all to vote Republican, and/or that if you vote Democrat, you're going to Hell. It's no wonder the country is so divided, if a significant fraction thinks there is really a hidden fifth letter "n" in Democrat.
At 9:17 AM,
Unknown said…
Wow, Curtis, it is interesting to remember that project of
ours 20 years ago. And I remember my intense feelings of
disgust at Reagan's combination of inflammatory rhetoric,
simple-minded argument, and smug self-righteousness.
Moreover, I remember feeling drawn to the Democratic Party
because of its association with the civil-rights movement a
generation before ours. My parents remember a time when no
Catholic in their circle of acquaintance would even consider
being Republican.
However---although I didn't realize it at the time---the
political winds of change had by 1984 already blown the
Democratic Party some distance from its position of 1964.
And the Republic Party, too. Moreover, the Church has
always been slow to react to changes in the world, and party
affiliation is often so firmly entrenched in the individual
as to cause him to remain a faithful supporter even after he
realizes that his party no longer advocates policies in line
with his own views. (This is one way to read Kerry.)
I haven't researched the data to back up my impression, but
it seems to me that, in the decades since the Democratic
Party started advocating a woman's right to an abortion, the
Catholic vote has been slowly swinging into the Republican
camp. Of course, the desire of many a vocal Democrat to
confer on a homosexual couple the privileges of civil
marriage---and to mistake a privilege for a right---hasn't
helped the Democrats on this front.
Pehaps I am just projecting my own political journey onto my
cultural colleagues.
At least my wife and I, because of the entrenchment to which
I refer above, cannot bear the thought of registering as
Republican. We hold out some faint hope of doing good in
the Democratic primaries. Still, we voted for some notable
Republicans, including the President. It was a hard
decision for us; we have never voted Republican before, for
anything. But the "moral values" considerations were
paramount for us.
I don't think that moral values will necessarily shape "how
we are going to elect Presidents from now on." They will,
however, play a role from time to time. Moral and religious
values played a role in the civil rights struggle, and they
play a different role now. No one complained against the
religious principles motivating those who used religion to
advance the cause of blacks in the South. How many an
atheist liberal in the 1950s made a sarcastic crack about a
Christian's fear of going to hell if he supports
segregation? Not many, I should wager. But most Catholics
of my parents' generation did feel that supporting
segregation was a sure way to go to hell. Its just that
back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Catholics and the atheists
were allies on some prominent social issues. The atheists
could focus their anti-religious message publicly toward the
Southern Protestants who advocated segregation.
Now that we all agree on civil rights, they are no longer a
prominent social issue. Other things have come up, and so
the Catholics and the atheists have become enemies on
prominent social issues. And the Catholics find themselves
allied now with the evangelical Protestants, who were
enemies not so long ago.
The current cultural and "values" issues really boil down to
the concept of the sacred. The Catholic understanding of
human rights derives from the belief in the existence of a
supernatural soul within every human being, even before he
shows signs of consciousness. This supernatural presence
within the human---but not in, say, the dog---is what gives
the human his dignity, his sacredness, and his inalienable
rights (even before it gives rise to his free will, his
conscience, and his rational mind). Also, the process and
context in which sacred human life is generated is itself
sacred. There is a supernatural dimension to sexuality, and
the sexual act is itself not merely a physical act. Just as
the unborn human should not be physically violated, so too
the sexual act should not be physically violated. This is
the basis for true marriage, which ensures that the sexual
act is licit. Not every "marriage", even between
heterosexuals, is a true marriage, but only a marriage
between a man and a woman can be a true marriage. We
recognize that true marriage is a foundation of society, and
we think that it is right for the state to grant civil
marriage a privileged status. A union that cannot possibly
be a true marriage should not obtain the privileges granted
to civil marriage.
When I was in high school, I called myself Catholic, but I
didn't really know what the Church teaches. Like Russell, I
was utterly failed by the feeble efforts of our parents and
the hierarchy properly to catechize me. Russell's comments
elsewhere in this forum lead me to conclude that he has not
taken the time to find out what the Church actually teaches,
and why she teaches it; what really happened in history, and
why the Church responded to historical events as she did.
Perhaps his position is due to a better and more diligent
study than I have been able to afford, but such study is not
apparent to me in his words.
I myself, after being brainwashed in high school by a
strange---perhaps uniquely American---combination of
Protestant and atheist revisionism, felt little desire to
dig up the ugly and embarrassing Catholic past. Various
events, however, prompted me to start digging. It has taken
me more than a decade to gain what I feel is an authentic
sense of Church history and teaching. It has not been easy,
both because of the volume of difficult reading required and
because of the logical consequences following from a serious
grasp of the faith.
In the end, I stand before you as a changed person. As in
1984, I am still committed to ideals, but I have through
some struggle replaced the ideals of a boy with the ideals
of a man. I don't mean to suggest that one who disagrees
with me is childish; it's just that my adult views of faith
and morality are substantially different from my childhood
views.
At this point, looking back to 1984, I don't know if I could
have voted for Reagan, but I certainly have more sympathy
for Lisa's position.
At 9:28 AM,
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 10:08 AM,
Unknown said…
Lark, good job on holding back the rambling. I wasn't able to do that. :^)
At 5:28 PM,
R said…
Lark makes some good points, but I'm with Tom. I think the Democrats have lots the Catholic vote, and probably for good. That's where all those votes they thought they would get went.
As soon as I can figure out how, I want to post a flyer that was distributed in the parish where I live two Sundays before the election (and maybe on other Sundays too; I wouldn't know since I don't attend that church regularly). It's about as clear as can be, without explicitly endorsing Bush, that the Catholic Church's position is that its members must vote for a candidate supporting certain positions, and against a candidate supporting the opposing position. Clearly, we expect moral leaders to advocate what their faith reveals to them as righteous views. Whether or not this flyer crosses some kind of line is a tough call. I do know that it appeared to annoy my father, even though he agreed with the morality it expresses, and indicated to me that he would vote with enthusiasm for Bush.
If my remark about Catholics fearing damnation came across as sarcastic, I didn't mean it that way, but only as an observation of how I believe many Catholics are responding to such direction from their leaders. I do not wish to cast aspersions on anyone's beliefs, however they arrived at them. Truth is unknowable to us mere mortals, but we all struggle in our own ways to get as close as we can to it. It seems to me that the fact that we don't all end up in the same place is inevitable, and arguably is more likely to produce some kind "progress," in the sense that someone somewhere may get a little closer than the rest of us.
For me personally, I am uncomfortable with any leader whose leadership consists of imposing his faith on others. I don't question his faith, or even his use of his faith to guide his decisions. I just want him to acknowledge that others have may taken a different journey.
Post a Comment
<< Home