The Myths of the Moral Values

Ever since the elections of a month ago, the buzz words of the political world have been "moral values." Immediately upon seeing the exit polls, which revealed moral values to be ahead of both Iraq and terrorism in importance to voters, the general public jumped on this phrase, proclaiming it to be the secret to all Republican successes.

And, thus enters Clinchy the Superblogger to say... not so fast.

Myth number one... these moral values carried Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress to victory.

Let's face it. There's a difference between a majority of the people, and a plurality in a seven-way race. Moral values were the top choice of only 22% of the electorate. Not only is 22% a paltry amount of the population, but you have to realize that these are exit polls we're talking about.

Most likely, they are the same exit polls that showed us a clean sweep of Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado. They were 0 for 6 on those; I fail to see why this poll should be treated any differently. A dishonest voter here, a polling error there, and we could easily find that the exit poll data are a few percentage points off. Moral values, for all we know, could have finished third, behind terrorism and jobs.

We live in an era of sensationalism. Every politician, journalist, pundit, speech writer, talk show host, and even... well, blogger... is trying to find his own original scoop. Everyone wants his own slant to take on the news. Unfortunately, upon seeing the results of the 2004 elections, not everyone was successful. People jumped on the "moral values" bandwagon without considering the true meaning of the numbers they were seeing. Which leads me to...

Myth number two. Moral values are The Next Big Thing in our political culture.

Quite the contrary! In fact, the "moral values" portion of the population has been on the decline in recent years. The same polls that showed moral values at the 22% level in 2004 pegged them at a whopping 40% in 1996, and by 2000, they were still holding fairly strong at 35%. The transition from 2000 to 2004 showed a sharp decline for moral values.

The reasons for this are fairly clear. After all, we were attacked on our own soil on September 11, 2001. This immediately brought terrorism to our attention, and it clearly hasn't left yet. Three years isn't nearly enough to wash away the fear brought on by what happened that day.

Add to that the Iraq war, and the recent reforms made in education, Medicare, and of course, taxes, and you have quite the plethora of significant issues on Americans' minds. Why in God's name are "moral values" getting all the hype? The fact of the matter is, we are entering a new era -- one in which rapidly changing domestic policies and a revolutionized outlook on foreign policy are taking priority over "moral values." Moral values had their day; the sun has set.

Not only have "moral values" lost their importance in our society, but the meaning behind the phrase has changed.

Myth number three: gay rights and abortion are the dominant issues incorporated into our moral values.

Fifty-five percent of those polled on Election Day earlier this month said that abortion should be legal. Sixty-one percent favored the extension of the right to either marriage or civil union to same-sex couples.

And yet, in this era of Roe v. Wade threatening and Constitution amending, George W. Bush is still America's choice for president, and he is still dominating the vote among those who emphasize moral values. What does this tell us? Well, for one thing, people have begun to realize that Bush is unlikely to find success in his quest for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage. It is simply unrealistic to expect Bush to find the amount of support he needs to amend the supreme law of the land. It also tells us that people are starting to believe moderates like Senator Arlen Specter, who reminds us that judges seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade will have trouble gaining support in this country.

Moral values in this day and age have taken on a new meaning. People can unite behind George W. Bush's morals for a variety of reasons. For one thing, he's a family man with a amiable personality -- he's easy for Americans to identify with. For another, he's bold, confident, and self-assured -- he's the kind of man with which people feel comfortable. And of course -- he'll never let us forget this one -- we know where he stands.

I'm not trying to support President Bush. As you all probably know, I will be the first to disagree with the man on most issues. However, he has a way with the American people. He knows what they want, and he knows how to present himself in a way that wins support.

Moral values may not be all they're cracked up to be, but still, there's no denying that they have -- if you don't mind me using the other buzz word of this election year -- electability. Just remember to take what you read with a grain of salt. Not all of the hype makes perfect sense.

(Neither does everything I write, but hey. It couldn't hurt to throw one more opinion into the ring.)

I got your moderate left, right here.

Does anyone else notice a trend when looking at the Democrats' successes and failures in the presidential elections of the past forty years?

Their three most notable failures have been George McGovern in 1972, Michael Dukakis in 1988, and John Kerry in 2004. Three flip-flopping, taxing-and-spending Massachusetts liberals who are out of touch with our nation's conservative ideals (or so I've heard).

Their three wildest successes? Well, on second thought, their only three successes? Those would be Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and our dearly beloved William Jefferson Clinton in 1992. What do they have in common? Why, of course, they are moderate-left Southern governors -- candidates who can appeal to the entire nation, and not just the blue-state base.

This leads the Democrats to an obvious question... who's next?

Perhaps the Democrats should turn away from their former Vermont governors, away from their rookie New York senators, and, for God's sake, away, from their Massachusetts liberals.

Perhaps they should turn toward the next of the great Southern governors, toward the new (albeit a bit funny-looking) face of the Democratic Party. That's right, Virginia Governor Mark Warner.

Warner is the perfect presidential candidate for 2008. First of all, he can appeal to the Democratic base well in his effort to win the nomination. When it comes to the liberal side of the country, Warner will run on his advocacy of sweeping health care reform -- he wants every child covered -- as well as improved standards in education, a higher minimum wage, and tax cuts for the middle class.

Second of all, he can then change gears in order to cater to the general electorate, and cruise to victory in November. Independents nationwide will love to see a Democrat who's not afraid to support the death penalty, lobby for gun rights, and stay fiscally conservative. (Actually, voters on both sides will be impressed with Warner's ability to spend responsibly and keep a balanced budget. We haven't seen a candidate on either side of the aisle who can claim that... in a long while.)

Voila! No flip-flopping necessary. Mark Warner can win simply because he is a political moderate; he's the kind of candidate who can win over any audience. Simply by catering to the different aspects of his record, Warner can prove himself to be the kind of candidate that all Americans can get behind.

Just keep in mind: he has to hide the fact that really, he is a Massachusetts liberal (Harvard Law, '80). I won't tell anyone if you won't.

Freedom of expression -- available in select cities!

In case you didn't notice, last Thursday, November 11, was Veterans' Day.

In honor of the troops serving our country abroad, ABC decided to show the World War II film Saving Private Ryan, one of the most realistic portrayals of war in cinematic history, to its nationwide audience on Thursday night. To me, this seemed like a great idea. Saving Private Ryan is a great movie, and it seems to be a very appropriate Veterans' Day tribute, considering the situation our military faces today.

Unfortunately, five Academy Awards and all the critical acclaim in the world isn't enough to win the respect of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

FCC chairman Michael Powell (I apologize in advance if I accidentally interchange his name with "Satan") denied ABC a waiver this week that would have allowed them to air the film without fear of disciplinary action. As a result, dozens of ABC affiliates pulled the movie, afraid of being fined.

It's sad that because of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," Bono's detonation of the dreaded F-bomb, and Howard Stern's collection of idiocy on parade that he has the nerve to call a "radio show," legitimate pieces of art like Saving Private Ryan are paying the price. The FCC's job is to protect us from hurtful or damaging forms of expression; they have no business intervening when it comes to a film that opens the American people's eyes to the truth. We're talking about a movie that teaches Americans a lesson that, in this day and age, we should all be required to learn: war is hell.

I'm not saying that Powell and his cohorts are the only ones to blame though. It's also troubling that there were so many ABC stations lacking the courage to stand up to the FCC and air the movie anyway.

Ray Cole, who runs three ABC affiliates in the Midwest, was quoted as saying "It would clearly have been our preference to run the movie. We think it's a patriotic, artistic tribute to our fighting
forces."

Unfortunately, nothing can be patriotic when it suppresses the truth, nor can it be artistic when it skews the artist's vision. In short, the airing of this film on Thursday night would have been a noble cause, but nobility and censorship just don't mix. And since there's no possible middle ground to take - Oscar-winning director Steven Spielberg forbids networks from editing his work -- how do dozens of ABC stations react? By cancelling the movie entirely.

If any of these TV executives were truly patriotic, they would have aired the movie anyway, sending the message that their passion for their country is more important to them than any financial punishment. But no, they would rather air "Return to Mayberry" -- whatever that is -- during prime time on a Thursday night.

Just think... this is a nation in which freedom of expression is supposed to be a core value. But thanks to Michael Powell, a man who was appointed by a president supposedly elected for his "moral values" (don't get me started), we are instead a nation living in fear. Does this make anyone else depressed?

Oh, Howard...

For the past week, the Democratic National Committee has been considering former presidential race train-wreck Howard Dean as a possible replacement for their chairman Terry McAuliffe.

I personally see this as an absolute disaster waiting to happen for the DNC.

Is it because he's even further to the left than McAuliffe, meaning he would polarize left and right even worse than they already are today?

Is it because Dean only appeals to the members of the liberal base on the East Coast, meaning he would make the Democrats even less of a national party than they already are?

Or is it because he can make sounds that human beings simply weren't meant to make, meaning that, well, he's a bit scary?

Yes, yes, and yes. But that isn't the real reason I have always hated Howard Dean. Read on.

When campaigning for the Iowa caucus, Dean gave a speech on November 1, 2003 that would live in infamy. The exact words that I will never forget are "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

And, with that, here goes... my nine reasons that this quote made me hate Howard Dean.

1) There's a word for a candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. It's a REPUBLICAN. The Democrats are the socially liberal party; they do everything they can to advance civil rights, not revert America to the days of slavery.

2) It's not that Dean is moving to the right by saying this. In reality, he's just making an empty political statement and not providing any justification for why Southerners would like him.

3) We are currently living in an era of, to quote John Edwards, one of the great political minds of our time, "two Americas." The politicians who actually care about reunifying our society are hard at work, and Howard Dean is discussing a symbol of the most divisive period in our nation's history.

4) Not only does the Confederate flag symbolize division, it also symbolizes TREASON. The South, when it rebelled against the rest of the United States, was fighting to defeat the freedom that Americans stand for. The Civil War was a disgrace to America, and Dean is openly approving of it.

5) Dean was only making this comment to steal the Southern vote from the aforementioned great political mind of our time, and since Edwards is one of my heroes, I am forced to hate Dean for this.

6) When asked to justify his words, Dean said, and I quote... "White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us, and not [Republicans], because their kids don't have health insurance either." What a brilliant idea! Dean's idea of pandering to a demographic is being horribly condescending, and assuming his target to be poor white trash.

7) It's painfully obvious that Confederate sympathizers in the South would never support Howard Dean. He supports gay rights and opposes a ban on abortion.

8) Did you catch the word "still" near the beginning of that priceless gem of a quote? That's right, it wasn't the first time Dean made the remark. There were reports in February of 2003 saying that Dean had expressed a similar sentiment at none other than... a DNC meeting. How dense can you be if you don't learn your lesson the FIRST time you make a remark this offensive?

9) I forget what my ninth reason was... I'll just leave you with the fact that Howard Dean is a Yankee fan and I hate him for that too.

I'm sure there are many other reasons that Howard Dean should never have a hand in American politics ever again, but those are the most important to me. Feel free to chime in with a few more!

A wild fantasy of mine

Our illustrious President Bush, in his victory speech last week, made the claim that he was "fully prepared to work with both Republican and Democratic leadership to advance an agenda."

Now I'm going to go ahead and trust him on this one -- for two reasons. One is that there's no real reason for him to resort to political token gestures anymore; he's already gotten his four more years, he doesn't really need the popularity. (Of course, the other reason is that Mr. Bush is a fine, upstanding, decent man, and I would never suspect him of misrepresenting the truth about anything, ever.)

That being said, if he's really serious about reaching out to Democrats, then I know a certain unemployed man in South Dakota who just might be willing to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of former Commerce Secretary Don Evans.

Seriously... there would be no better choice for the job than Tom Daschle.

-He is one of the finest economic minds in Washington... he spent 18 years on the Senate Finance Committee.

-He is like Bush in that both are deeply concerned with improving Social Security and Medicare.

-He is also a proponent of cutting down the national deficit, an area in which Bush has shown... a bit of weakness.

-Bush is looking to prove himself to be a uniter, and not a divider, in his second term. Is there any better way to unite Americans than to take one of the Democrats' most outspoken figures and turn him into a key advisor in a bipartisan cabinet?

-Last but not least, somebody's got to hire the man... thanks to John Thune, he's out of a job for goodness' sake.

I admit that this idea is more of a fantasy than a prediction. It's unlikely that Bush is willing to reach this far across party lines this soon. But Daschle was a good senator for three terms, and at 56, he still has four solid years left in him. Don't count him out.

Mr. Bush... if you really weren't kidding about working together with the Democrats, here's your chance. I'd love to see you take it.