Posted on 11/21/2004 1:11:43 PM PST by rface
Frankly, the whole "We're-moral-and-you're-not" argument is so much bilge. For example, how does that explain why a red state like Nevada offers legal gambling and legalized prostitution? Why does blue Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rate in the nation (about half that of Texas)? For that matter, how is it the thrice-divorced Limbaugh, an admitted narcotics addict and given over to great anger (one of the Seven Deadly Sins, remember), can present himself as a spokesman for "values?"
Driving south on I-91 a few days after the election, I caught part of Rush Limbaugh's program. Not surprisingly, Limbaugh was reading from the current Republican script about how Republicans have morals and values and Democrats don't.
The source of this spin is some exit polling that found 22 percent of the people who voted on Nov. 2 named "family values" as their top concern, ahead of terrorism, the economy and other issues we've come to expect are on people's minds when they vote. This 22 percent broke for George Bush by something like 4 to 1. Without deconstructing that poll, suffice to say this was not some spontaneous outpouring of support, but rather the successful result of Karl Rove's intense effort from grassroots organizing to regular White House briefings to recruit 4 million evangelical voters to come to the polls this year. Nonetheless, many pontificators claim, as Limbaugh did, that the presidential election was "about" morals and values and that people believed Bush had them and John Kerry didn't.
As I listened, Limbaugh, referring to the electoral map with its two patches of blue separated by a swath of red, told his audience the left has "fled" all those parts of the country where morals and values are important meaning the red states to go hole up in their little preserves of blue.
I heard that and thought, "You talkin' to me?" I was reared a solid Republican in the Midwest, about 150 miles from where Limbaugh's family lived, as a matter of fact. As I grew up and changed, so did my politics. After ROTC and College Republicans, I found, by my late 20s, I'd become a liberal independent and had moved to Vermont. But as I was packing for the trip East, I don't recall thinking, "Ack, moral values! I gotta get outta here!"
Frankly, the whole "We're-moral-and-you're-not" argument is so much bilge. For example, how does that explain why a red state like Nevada offers legal gambling and legalized prostitution? Why does blue Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rate in the nation (about half that of Texas)? For that matter, how is it the thrice-divorced Limbaugh, an admitted narcotics addict and given over to great anger (one of the Seven Deadly Sins, remember), can present himself as a spokesman for "values?"
Let's all take a deep breath here. What's more important, I think, than arguing over who's got the higher morals, is talking about how we should apply our common standards of behavior and decency to build a good and just society. Certainly, in the current hyper-polarized political environment, where there are deep divisions even over the definition of a good and just society, this is not a conversation that's going to happen soon. Finding common ground on abortion and gay marriage seems pretty unlikely. But we'll all be better off when that conversation does happen. If we need a religious context to begin, I suggest the Sermon on the Mount blessed are the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers; turn the other cheek; judge not, that ye be not judged. That would be a good start.
For their part, Democrats/liberals/progressives shouldn't shy away from talking about their convictions in moral terms. The current morals/values debate, let's face it, is centered on sex and who gets to have it. We can broaden that debate.
We used to talk about the moral imperative of confronting poverty or racism or violence. We can do that again. We can take a deeper lesson from the voters who said values were important, and that lesson is to listen to them, address their concerns, present our ideas and beliefs in a way that reveals their grounding in moral conviction.
We shouldn't fear a real discussion about morals and values; we should welcome it.
John Fairbanks lives in Montpelier (and doesn't know anything about red state values)
This is a version of a joke that is too good not to pass on:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a "Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me." The man smiled and responded, "You must be a "Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow now, it's... MY fault."
-- Diamon Sforza
Fayetteville, GA
great anger (one of the Seven Democrat Sins, remember),
"Finding common ground on abortion and gay marriage".....
No need to find common ground-we won, you lost, end of discussion!
BTW, not to defend Rush's problem with drugs, but even he has stated, even if someone has a divorce, it doesn't mean they are wrong for standing for marriage. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong.
I thought the deal on the figures is the rates were figured on per cent of marriages, as to a rate on the total population. Probably the rate of marriage in the Mass population is less because of the magnet for gays, weirdos, and the usual assortment of guys to lazy to marry their girlfriends. Hard to get divorced when you don't get married...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.