Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| America's values |
| 11.03.04 (3:47 pm) [edit] |
|
I am a generally optimistic and hopeful person, willing to give the benefit of the doubt and look for the best of possibilities; but all that was crushed last night. Bush's victory shows that there is a very skewed view of what is important and what is valued in America. And this is something that I am afraid cannot be easily changed. There will likely be much analysis in the days to come of what exactly caused the defeat of John Kerry. Things to be examined might include the impact of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, the attack on John Kerry as being a flip-flopper and weak on security, the approval rating of Bush's handling of the War on Terror, the lack of a cohesive message from the Democratic Party, or the bin Laden tape released that likely rallied Bush supporters. And while each of those things merits evaluation, I think the single determining factor in this election was who atually voted. As [url=http://therealspartacus0 07.tb...]therealspartacus007[/url ] pointed out,the most important issue, according to exit polls, seemed to many to be [b]moral values[/b]. Moral values. Not the war in Iraq, not the economy, not the war on terror (though that ranked second in terms of importance), not domestic issues, but moral values shaped this election. I would speculate that this is not because most Americans actually perceive moral values to be the most important issue our nation faces, but because the bloc of voters who do see moral values as dominant were the most mobilized. Only about 10% of the electorate was comprised of first-time voters, the same as four years ago. The majority of the youth that did vote was for Kerry. But I believe that a majority of the other 90% of voters was made up of those who were clearly mobilized based on their faith. So what does this mean? Is it a bad thing that moral values were ranked the number one issue in this election? I believe that this signifies the direction of America's future as well as the importance of mobilizing voters. I do think that selecting our president based on the issue of moral values is a bad thing. But don't get me wrong- I am all for moral behavior and a strong supporter of ethics. However, I sense that the vast majority of voters has a skewed perception of most moral issues. And that is basically that they view issues such as gay marriage and abortion solely as moral issues, thus neglecting the importance of individual rights. The fact that the majority of those who voted in this year's election did so based on who they beleived expressed the strongest moral values. But I don't believe that "moral values" actually relates to [i]all[/i] moral values, but primarily those that comply with Christian beliefs, such as protecting traditional marriage and fighting for life (in other words, banning same-sex couples from marrying and denying women the right to choose). I don't know that it is possible to convince those who view these issues based on their faith and what they personally perceive to be moral that there are other aspects to the issues, and that forcing the entire nation to comply to [b]their[/b] morality isn't exactly supporting freedom. Abortion is not simply a battle between those who believe it to be immoral and those who support murdering babies. The real debate should lie in constitutionality, but it doesn't. The President, as well as many other politicians, has used abortion and gay marriage as political tools. President Bush appealed to the faith of his supporters and undecideds to make gay marriage a moral issue. All eleven states that voted on proposed amendments to their state's constitution banning gay marriage passed them. I would wager that most voters who supported these bans did so based on what they see as a moral issue. I'll agree that there is a moral aspect to the issue of gay marriage- but that is not the only aspect, nor is it the most important when it comes to legislation. It would seem that many Americans hope to negate the separation of church and state and assert their Christian values. Giving the government the power to determine our own morals is incredibly dangerous. I have a feeling this will be grudgingly understood in the years to come. The Republican Party now has control over the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and soon Bush will be given the power to appoint Supreme Court Justice(s). President Bush will be leading based on a moral agenda. This agenda is in contrast to the true values of America, I believe, and those are the values of freedom, liberty, justice, individual rights, and equality. In essence, I think things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get any better. If they get better. |
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 11.03.04 (12:52 pm)
Right, they voted that way because they can't distinguish between something being legal and something being right-- although that was the very distinction that brought Western Civilization out of the muck and into the skyscrapers and is keeping much of the rest of the world down.
posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 11.03.04 (1:05 pm)
You don't know what you have until you have lost it. Perhaps the American people will realize what they have lost by the next election. But, the complete distortion of the truth blurs peoples perception of the world. So, instead right wing talk radio tells listeners what the world looks like and the listeners don't bother to go out and see.
My hope in America has been reduced by this election.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 11.03.04 (1:37 pm)
Do you think a larger percentage of young voters would have shown up had Dean been the candidate?
j
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 11.03.04 (2:08 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
"My hope in America has been reduced by this election."
Ditto. :(
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 11.03.04 (2:11 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
Well, I don't know. It is possible, I suppose, that had there been a candidate who really differed from Bush extremely, particularly on the war in Iraq, that more of the youth would have voted. But I don't know. It seems to me that if when faced with a war most Americans disapprove of, a net job loss, the rumors abounding regarding a possible draft returning with Bush, and the domestic issues at stake, people still don't bother to vote, there isn't much hope that anything would really motivate them.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 11.03.04 (2:18 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Well... given that this was the largest voter turn out since '68, I think it's clear that people did vote... just not young people.
Dean seemed to have mobilized a youthful contingency early on as one of the first candidates of any party to use the internet as a tool to rally troops. I suppose I just wonder if his candidacy would have sparked more interest.
Like most people, I voted against a candidate rather than for one. That said, I can see why a lot of people just stay home.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 11.03.04 (6:35 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
Yeah, I actually just meant the youth vote, but still, I don't know. It seems as though the youth wouldn't care enough regardless. Maybe having a more appealing candidate would have helped, but it's really hard to tell- they thought the youth was mobilized until they got the actual numbers in.
posted by: James (reply)
post date: 11.09.04 (8:30 am)
The election had nothing to do with morals, as the Pew center has recently proved. Iraq, and Kerry's flip-flops, was the most important issue.
Take your religious bigotry elsewhere.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 11.09.04 (11:35 am)
Tsk, such cynisim.
Oh well, in other news, they finally published my interview in the paper. Ran it last week. This week in the letter to the editors, someone wrote in saying that they thought I was actually a Libertarian but just wasn't aware of it yet. They went on to say that it is very sad that today's youth is duped into the constrictive thinking that there are really only two options. They ended their letter by saying what was even sadder was the media's perpetuation of this.
Thought you might find it interesting, for whatever it's worth. :)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 11.09.04 (4:46 pm)
Reply to: James
Nothing to do with moral values? Then why did the highest percentage of voters say that moral values was THE most important issue? Maybe other polls signified that some other issue was ranked higher among voters, but I wrote this based on the information of the time, and moral values obviously played some kind of role in the election. And I'm not sure where there's any religious bigotry here. I was merely expressing the view that morality, particularly that based on religious ideology alone, has no place in politics. Who the hell wants politicians deciding what is moral for them? That's the only point I'm making- it's not an indictment of religion, nor is it an appeal for an atheistic society. All I want is complete separation of church and state. I'm sure that's completely unAmerican and a bigoted idea, but oh well.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 11.09.04 (5:12 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
"Tsk, such cynisim."
Heh, I was a bit depressed after the election, but I'm doing better now. ;)
"they finally published my interview in the paper"
Congrats! I want to read it. :)
I don't know if you're a Libertarian, but I think most people are inclined to agree with most of the basic views of libertarianism (personal freedom, individual responsibility, civil liberties, non-intrusive government...), but we all see different ways of reaching the same goals, and that's the nature of politics. I definitely agree with the assertion that the media perpetuates the view of their only being two options, and the way they display those options is a shame. No media outlet can honestly claim to have integrity these days.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 11.11.04 (7:44 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Ya, I don't really think i'm libertarian either. I just thought that was kind of funny. I guess I'm not that neo-Nazi facist after all. ;)
I'll scan a copy into the 'puter and send it to ya. :)
And I can't say enough how no news media is truly honest or unbiased these days. Word ...
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 11.13.04 (2:41 pm)
Moral values was not necessarily the most important issue. A plurality of voters may have said that, but they were not asked to rank their choices. If almost twice as many people thought that the war and the economy were both more important, but were divided over which was most important, both would end up lower in the polls. I used those as an example, not because I have any reason to believe that they were necessarily the most important issues. However it's important to remember that it's quite possible to come up with the results that they came up with, and also have most people answer "no" to "is moral values the most important issue" or answer "yes" to "is issue x more important than moral values?" However, those questions were not asked.
It's very common for the media to draw conclusions that have no foundation and cannot be ascertained from the data.
As for moral values, it should be an important issue. I don't want a leader who lies to me, especially about important issues. I don't want a leader who sends people to their deaths before exploring other options to their fullest. I don't want a leader who discriminates against one group of people and favors another when the target of discrimination did nothing illegal or that infringed upon anybody else. All those actions by a president are ones I would consider immoral, so perhaps moral values should be my top answer too.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 11.22.04 (9:13 pm)
as a neo-libertarian (just wondered what "neo" would like if applied to "libertarian"... doesn't sound as sinister as "neo-con" does it?), i am sensitive to erosion of our freedoms. personally, i don't feel the "gay marriage ban" movement and the abortion controversy are anything but a legitimate national conversation on issue that reasonable people can find honest disagreement. on gay marriage, it was the illegal marriages in san francisco that over-played what was a steadily progressing general acceptance of homosexuals in most all walks of life in most of our country. even with the gay marriage issue, i find that progress on gay acceptance and the logic that gay life-partners deserve being legally treated as married partners continues to move forward -- as I sincerely hope continues. on abortion, this is an undercurrent issue that is nothing new and has been driving conservative political base for years. i support abortion rights but there is little doubt that roe versus wade is bad law at best and an egregious example at unconstitutional judicial activism at worst. the gay marriage ban, is just the opposite -- it is bad legislation at best and an unconstitutional infringment on constitutional protections against discrimination at worst.
the democratic party has been out of touch with mainstream america for over 20 years. bill clinton was an anomaly because he played the "middle path" card. the real majority in america is somewhere close to the that middle path the neither party can embrace because of their base. most americans want similar things from their government -- fiscal responsibility, fair and low taxation, strong national defense including domestic terrorism protection, and enlightened social policy that protects both freedom and traditional values.
