Overused and vague as the term is, the clash of values is clearly driving the debate. Ask a Bush supporter why he still supports a President who has presided over domestic job losses of a magnitude not seen since Herbert Hoover, and he (less often she) will tell you that George Bush opposes abortion. Ask why he still supports a President who led us–on false pretences–into an unnecessary war that has made us demonstrably less safe, a President who has squandered the international good will that welled up in the wake of 9-11, and he will tell you that the President opposes gay marriage. Ask how he can support an administration that has trashed the environment, trampled civil liberties, and run up a deficit so huge that our grandchildren will still be working to pay it off, and he’ll tell you it is because George W. Bush is a good Christian.
As I write this, summer is not yet over. In previous election years, the Presidential campaigns would barely be underway; this year, however, we have already had months of competing ads. Shrill and negative accusations are flying back and forth between partisans who don’t seem to inhabit the same planet, so different are their perceptions of the world around them.
At the center of all the noise, over and over, we hear that this election is about values. Family values, democratic values, “Judeo-Christian” values—they are all front and center in this incredibly polarized Presidential contest.
Overused and vague as the term is, the clash of values is clearly driving the debate. Ask a Bush supporter why he still supports a President who has presided over domestic job losses of a magnitude not seen since Herbert Hoover, and he (less often she) will tell you that George Bush opposes abortion. Ask why he still supports a President who led us—on false pretences—into an unnecessary war that has made us demonstrably less safe, a President who has squandered the international good will that welled up in the wake of 9-11, and he will tell you that the President opposes gay marriage. Ask how he can support an administration that has trashed the environment, trampled civil liberties, and run up a deficit so huge that our grandchildren will still be working to pay it off, and he’ll tell you it is because George W. Bush is a good Christian.
In short, he will tell you that he values a government that privileges his religious beliefs over those of his neighbors.
Well, I’m a fundamentalist of sorts myself. I value limited government. That means that before I decide whether I will support a candidate, before I criticize an officeholder’s performance, I ask a threshold question: does this person understand the limited role of the state in a free society, and are his actions consistent with that understanding?
It would undoubtedly come as a shock to the Bushies, but governments were not instituted among men to save souls. I do not look to political leadership to tell me how I should conduct my personal affairs, sexual or reproductive, nor to legislate a narrowly conceived Christianity. I vote for a Commander in Chief, not a Supreme Pastor, and most definitely not one who seems anxious to embark upon a holy war or Christian jihad.
Much of the political polarization we are experiencing is a result of these diametrically different visions of government’s role. Yes, Americans differ over the appropriate level of environmental and business regulation; we have contending views about foreign policy, criminal justice and the whole panoply of issues facing the country. But those differences are not so great, and they are capable of resolution. For that matter, polls consistently find that large majorities of Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, disagree with this Administration on virtually all of these issues. The people who nevertheless plan to vote for George W. Bush simply don’t consider his positions or his performance dispositive. Instead, they want someone who “shares their values”—including the value of imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
That’s why this election is so important: it is a choice between a candidate willing to operate within the confines of a constitutional republic and one who wants to move us toward theocracy.
Don’t misunderstand the point I am making: the problem isn’t that GWB would be successful in tearing down the wall between Church and State (although even incremental movement in that direction is distinctly unhelpful). The problem is that, by trying, he will polarize America even further. There are no differences as intractable as theological and religious ones. We can compromise over environmental regulations and foreign policies; the issues that inflame and divide us—the issues that cannot be compromised—are those that are essentially religious. If we have any lesson to learn from the Arab world, it is that America’s Founders bought our civic peace by excluding religion from the operations of state.
If Bush wins, that civic peace is jeopardized, and we are in for a turbulent and increasingly hostile four years.
