As I've been watching the endless recycling of stale news as I await either a definitive count or a concession by Kerry, I've heard a lot about how disappointing the young voter turnout supposedly was. Apparently, approximately the same percentage of the vote, about 17%, was under 25. Kerry supporters are shaking their heads and wondering how they failed to get young people involved and motivated. They thought that a high turnout of young people would hand Kerry the presidency on a silver platter. What happened?
Well, I think the Kerry campaign did get young people to vote in impressive numbers, however, the Bush campaign managed to get other disaffected citizens to vote, such as Evangelical Christians. My guess is that voter turnout was up across the board and as a result, high youth turnout was obscured. I think a lot of people underestimated the number of older citizens who did not vote in 2000 but were motivated to vote this year. I'll be very interested to see the demographic breakdowns once the dust settles. I think we'll find that while focusing on getting young people to "rock the vote", the Democratic Party lost touch with the rest of the country. Furthermore, a lot of the young people Kerry inspired to vote may have voted against him. Maybe we'll find that young people aren't so overwhelmingly liberal as we thought.
“Every law is a legislation of someone’s morality.”
Maybe, but not all morality is contested. For example, nobody is suggesting that murder be decriminalized. I don’t think any activity should be criminalized unless it meets the same level of support.
On the other hand, there is almost nothing in the agenda of the Right that is not contested: abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic stem cells are the big ones these days. These are highly controversial issues that the Right refuses to budge on. So rather than arguing their case or convincing other people, they have turned to the strategy of taking control of the government so they can advance their agenda without opposition. This is the exact same strategy that the southern slave states used before the Civil War, and what angered so many in the northern states.
If the agenda of the Christian Right goes much further, they’re going to face extra-legal opposition. There will be people providing abortions like Jack Kevorkian provided assisted suicide. There will be local officials providing gay marriages like we saw in San Francisco. People don’t want to have these things legislated out of their hands.
At the same time, some of us are sick of people treating the civil government like a house of worship, invoking God at every turn, and this just happens to be perhaps the biggest goal of the Christian Right. When people are out there today thanking God for giving them the “right” person to enforce their worldview, when the President repeatedly claims to believe that he is doing the will of God in his governing, there is little to see in this pattern but that the Christian Right is ultimately aiming for a fascist theocracy where it’s illegal to be an atheist and it’s illegal to behave in ways that conservative Christians don’t approve.
Meanwhile, all the years that Christians complained about “secular humanists,” they never lost their right to go to church, never lost their right to pray, never lost their right to marry someone of the opposite sex, never lost their right to not abort their babies, never lost their right, in short, to live Christian lives. But the moment they get political power, they do everything they can to take rights from everyone else!
Leave criminal activities in the sphere of universal disapproval, and don’t use the power of the federal government to criminalize controversial behaviors.
So politics is just culture war strategy, or what? Is there anybody left in this country who doesn't want to use the government to advance some moral or cultural agenda?
What happened to establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty?
Why do we have people all over the country doing the Snoopy dance because we got four more years of a president who supports the criminalization of things they think are immoral?
Why can't Americans be free to decide for themselves whether they want to clone embryos, get abortions, or engage in homosexual marriages, instead of having these decisions legislated for them? What are conservative Christians so flippin' terrified of? Can't have the neighbors getting abortions or being gay? Why does the whole nation have to conform to your moral view? You can choose not to abort your babies. You can still have a heterosexual spouse. And if you're outside of California you can choose whether you want your money to go toward embryonic stem cell research. (Should the issue come up federally or in your state, vote against it. You're free to do that.)
The philosophical differences between the Left and the Right don't bother me. But when people see the government as an agent of their own moral agenda, I get extremely annoyed. That's not what the government is for.
Amen to that.
Funky,
I don’t know the final stats on this, but several sources had youth turnout at exactly the same level as 2000 — I would have expected a little more, but I clearly am an idealist on that.
Theo,
I realize from time to time that other people out there really don’t see abortion as the moral issue some of us Christian folk do. But I have to second Steve on the Roe comment — unfortunately, like Steve, I don’t see too many other bright spots in this, but I’ll keep searching…
I don’t buy it. I think they did turn out, but so did a lot of other people. Also, I think there are far more conservative young people than the DNC anticipated. They were motivated to vote this time, too.
"Every law is a legislation of /isomeone's morality."
to which, Theo responded:
Maybe, but not all morality is contested. For example, nobody is suggesting that murder be decriminalized. I don't think any activity should be criminalized unless it meets the same level of support.
Do current tax rates have the same level of support as laws against murder? I think they should be higher (at least for those who, like myself, can afford it). Some think lower, some the same. These laws do impact all our lives, e.g., how much discretionary income we get.
Just how popular does a law have to be? The murder example probably gets about 99% approval. But is 67% okay? Prohibition went thru with approval from 75% of the state legislatures. As did its repeal, of course. Is 75% enough to legislate morality?
Or is it that you don't agree with legislating morality only when you don't agree with the legislation? If so, then you shouldn't pretend there is some higher law that forbids certain forms of legislation. If there is a higher law, then it should be clearly stated.
Best regards
I hope so.
I mutterred to myself when the dems nominated Kerry that the last northeastern liberal to be elected president was Kennedy. Since then it has been only moderate/conservative (or conservative-sounding (LBJ)) Southern democrats who have succeeded. I went into yesterday thinking that I was wrong: Bush was so unpopular that (in my mind) even John Kerry could win. I was right with the first thought. Impossible to know but I’m almost positive that Gephardt or Edwards (at the top of the ticket) would have beaten GWB.
The problem is with the democratic “base” who in the course of only a few primaries/caucuses decides who their horse will be every 4 years. They are way too far to the left. Kerry’s views on gays cost him big time. In sympathy to h2, I have to guess that Dean wouldn’t have fared even as well as Kerry.
At the same time, there is a problem with the Republican base… i.e., we (evangelical Christians) are in it. This sucks! How do I reform this monolothic, gullible voting block? I hope for a pro-choice/embryo-cloning Schwartzenegger-esque republican in ’08. That will hopefully end this reign of terror that “my people” have foisted on themselves and the American people.
As regards the 18-24 YOs, yeah they didn’t turn out. This strikes me as so typical of the group: far more concerned with fashion than substance. It turned out that the vote (in general) was gotten out… it just cut both ways (contrary to pundit opinion).
Too many folks just weren’t voting for Kerry, but against Bush… This proved to be too unreliable when the rubber met the road.
On the bright side, we should be able to get some bright young anti-Roe SC justices out of the deal. This is the only solace I find in this result. Hopefully it will not be at cost of another 20,000 Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian lives.
Cheers!
I think it was unquestioned that the youth sentiment favored Kerry, but as Joe Scarborough said on MSNBC last night, “they’ll leave you at the altar every time.”
Had they bothered to actually turn out, it might have made a difference, but reality doesn’t show them to be a reliable base.
One thing I found was that the undecided voters near my age who I talked to were generally leaning toward Bush. There were your standard, liberal, anyone-but-Bush activists on college campuses, but there were plenty who didn’t know who to vote for (but knew it was important to vote). The sense I got in talking to some of that second group is that they didn’t like Bush, but they really didn’t trust Kerry — so they were leaning toward Bush. That surprised me, and I’m not sure how many of the leaners actually went to the polls, but still….
To the Kavorkian snippet, yes. And that is why a small handful of the "Christian Right" (a malapropism) want desperately to change the social conditions that give rise to anti-life attitudes in society. Let's call these the Christian Left (the half-dozen of so of us who are "left" defending the traditional Christian agenda).
Second off, no. Most of the "Christian Right" is not trying to make homosexual behavior illegal. It is far from clear that a gov't should (in principle) try to make a law that is only enforceable by breaking a higher moral law (i.e., the one against spying in on people's bedrooms). There's a big difference between proscribing state validation of homosexual unions and proscribing certain sexual behaviors. I am personally ambivalent to the question, as I'm not really all that thrilled with state sanction of marriage (vis-a-vis a sacramental view) anyway. I'm personally happy to see homosexuals (at least ostensibly) wanting monogamy and find this to be less "disordered" than heterosexual promiscuity.
I find it hard to believe that very many in the "religious right" are actually trying to deny homosexuals or athiests or anyone else with whom they disagree a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property (the classical Lockean liberal state). Some are… but they are crackpots and always have been.
Peace!
The problem is that abortion IS murder. What you are doing is killing somebody who is unique, maybe not intellectually yet, but certainly genetically.
And when people say embryos are not truly human, they are committing a classic attempt of trying to justify heinous acts. Slave owners in this county justified holding Africans against there will because they said they are not truly human beings. Hitler justified the Holocaust by saving that Jews were not truly human beings. Saying this allows you to mollify your conscience, which is screaming at you that this is wrong.
I am no fan of the Republican Party. If this election puts Pro-Life justices on the Supreme Court, its worth putting up with the Republicans. At the end of the day, lives may be saved, which is frankly what this is all about.
Theo,
So I guess in your world view protecting the unborn isn’t establishing justice or promoting general welfare.
Since you borrowed from the Constitution’s preamble, I’ll borrow from the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Abortion deprives people of their right to life and consequently to any other right. If liberals want to say that abolishing abortion is contrary to our form of government (as John has suggested), so be it. We who respect the sanctity of life, a large portion of “the governed”, seek to alter the government, guided by such principles and organizing our powers in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect the safety and happiness of all humans conceived.
Theo:
Every law is a legislation of someone’s morality. You seem to be arguing for a reduction in the overall amount of law. This is a very libertarian viewpoint–just one I don’t happen to share.
I understand the following statement:
The philosophical differences between the Left and the Right don’t bother me. But when people see the government as an agent of their own moral agenda, I get extremely annoyed. That’s not what the government is for.
to mean:
“Philosophical differences between right and left don’t bother me, but, because I am of libertarian opinion, philosophical differences between libertarians and populists do.”
[note: I am here using “populism” to mean (lacking a better word, “progressive” maybe?) that Gov’t should act as a force for “good” (whatever good that might be.]
You seem to be agitating against the notion that government should consider the question of right vs. wrong in determining policy. If so, then are you not saying it is wrong to consider questions of right vs. wrong?
Your question:
Is there anybody left in this country who doesn’t want to use the government to advance some moral or cultural agenda?
is an interesting one especially because it can equally be asked of the left and the right. California legislated strongly in favor of embrionic stem cell research. Others legislated strongly against state recognition of homosexual unions. But again, this is much less a validation of left or right wing agenda than it is a validation of the essential “populism” of the American people.
I, for one, am not doing a Snoopy dance over the results of 11/2…
Cheers!
Well, I believe Kerry tried to connect with the youth voter when using foul languege during his Rolling Stones interview, tried to connect with christians when he stumped the churches on Sunday’s, and tried to woo the NRA block when he went goose hunting with his brand new camo’s, and tried to hit his far left wing base when mentioning Haliburton while reaching out to the pro-defense voters when he went into pro-war-in-Iraq mode. I think his loss had to do with how he tried to connect with EVERYBODY and he ended up connecting with less of every voting block he needed to win. But bear in mind this loss can’t be attributed to Kerry alone, the House and Congress lost seats to the Republican party, too. The entire Democrat Party is becomming the party of Michael Moore, and more and more folks aren’t buying what their selling.
When does it become ontologically human? Birth? That’s pretty arbitrary. What’s ontologically different about a child a few nanoseconds after birth and a few nanoseconds before? I am quite aware that not evryone holds the view that humanity begins at conception. However, I find the notion that since we don’t have a precise statement of when humanity does begin (other than birth), we can end an unborn life any time we please. The lack of widespread and consistent restrictions frightens and disgusts me. It’s like throwing a grenade through the window of a home that may or may not be occupied. I don’t know if anyone’s home to be killed by my grenade, so I have no qualms about throwing it. Shouldn’t there be strict limits on abortion until the question of the beginning of humanity is answered? We’re not talking about Schroedinger’s cat here, people. Either it’s human or it isn’t. It isn’t not human simply because we abort it.
You can say “abortion IS murder” all you want but the fact is that not everyone agrees with you. However, if person A gets a gun and shoots person B, there’s near universal agreement about the nature of that act. There’s no similar consensus for abortion. Not here, not now, not any time in history.
How can you compare African slaves or Jews with embryos? In both cases we had full-grown humans who were members of functioning communities. They were taken from those communities and then literally dehumanized. I.e., they began as fully human and that quality was stripped from them. The situation with an embryo could hardly be more different! Here we have something that comes from a human but is not yet human. It’s humanity cannot be taken away, but only given. You are choosing to bestow humanity on something that is ontologically not yet human. That decision is fine, but don’t expect me or anyone else to make the same one.
Furthermore (regulars on these comment boards here probably know what I’m about to say next, because this is one of my pet issues), don’t go telling me what my conscience is saying. Don’t ever assume that somebody else has the same sense of “conscience” you do. You are not in my head. You don’t know what I’m thinking. Don’t presume.
Embryos are little clumps of cells only six days out from fertilization. We can make these things on demand in test tubes (in vitro fertilization). Extra ones get destroyed all the time when people use IVF to have a baby. My “conscience” isn’t screaming anything about these things; destroying them doesn’t bother me at all. On the other hand, making slaves of people simply because they’re black or killing people simply because they’re Jews, that makes me queasy.
Oh yeah, and one other thing. Slapping the Hitler comparison on people is not only a worn-out cliche, it’s just plain rude. Speaking of worn-out, Homie don’t play that.