The Values Thing

At the risk of sounding like George Bush the First disdaining "The vision thing", I am beginning to think "the values thing" as a factor in the 2004 Presidential election has been overblown and improperly identified.

John in Phoenix sent me Joe Klein’s article, "The Values Gap" from the November 22 issue of Time, wherein Klein attempts to analyze the exit polling on the role "moral values" and "traditional values" played in the minds of voters. Klein talks about the middle class squeeze and overworked parents turning to religion for an antidote to the trash being spewed at their unsupervised children. I agree with Klein about the squeeze and parental concern, but think he should also have mentioned how the Republicans have been purposely working since the 1960's to undermine the faith of the middle class and the poor in their own government as caring about them and their children, as mentioned in my post Econ 101 on November 19.

The "values" thing is vague. I expect what it really meant to the voters who relied on it to cast their vote for Bush was more specific, namely the same things you can hear the right wing preachers ranting about: "evil" things like gays, abortion, sex, drugs, lazy entitlement mentality. Using vague code words like "values" in connection with Bush was intended to line him up with opposition to these evils, without running the risk of losing "values" voters by getting into specific questions. What about Cheney’s daughter; what about the health of the mother being endangered by birth; is procreation the only moral purpose for sexual relations; is Rush an evil drug addict or only another conservative in need of copious painkillers; is a single mom who finds it cheaper to stay home and supervise her kids than take a minimum wage job and pay more than her income for day care lazier than a rich woman with no children but many housekeepers?

When asked at the third Presidential debate whether he believed homosexuality is a choice, Bush showed the "depth" of his study of the subject, one on which he supposedly felt knowledgeable enough to champion the first constitutional amendment in history that would restrict civil rights rather than expand them (the ban on gay marriage), when he responded to the moderator, "You know, Bob, I don’t know. I just don’t know."

The third debate transcript is worth reading again to see how much more a man of sincere religious values Kerry came across compared to the fount of "value" platitudes Bush seemed to be. Interestingly, Bush used the name "God" only twice, once in response to the role his faith played in his policy decisions when he said"I believe God wants everybody to be free", and then at the end when he closed with "God Bless You." Kerry used God’s name seven times, twice in the context of discussing gay persons when he said that "God made them" and "we are all God’s children", once when he said about abortion he believes it is "between the woman, God and her doctor", once when he said the "test of public service" is that "here on Earth God’s work must truly be our own", and three times in his closing remarks saying first, "with faith in God...I believe we can reach higher"and ending with "God Bless America".

In the middle of his closing remarks, Kerry very accurately stated what seems to me the legitimate position a Christian public servant should be taking at this time in America, " the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet. "

The transcript of the third debate can be found at the Washington post site here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html